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.
x The Wellcome Trust is a global charitable foundation dedicated to achieving improvements in human and animal health. It supports biomedical research and the medical humanities. The Trust’s breadth of support includes public engagement, education and the application of research to improve health. It is independent of both political and commercial interests.
1 “Founder organisations”, UKCMRI website, www.ukcmri.ac.uk/about-us/founder-organisations 2 Office of National Statistics (2009) ‘Expenditure on R&D performed in UK businesses: 2009.’ Newport: ONS. 3 Medical Research Council, UKCMRI Final Full Business Case, version 7, January 2011, Foreword
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 5
x UCL is situated in the heart of London. It is the most productive centre for academic medical research in Europe and works in partnership with 11 top London hospitals.4
5. Our predecessor Committee examined the establishment of the UKCMRI and published a report in January 2008, UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation.5 The Committee found that:
The establishment of the UKCMRI is potentially one of the most exciting developments in UK research for some time. It is also one of the most high risk, involving an estimated cost [then] of £500m, including nearly £300m of public funds through the MRC. There is therefore a clear public interest argument that the proposals and their implementation should be closely scrutinised by Parliament. In addition, the former Science and Technology Committee had a long-standing interest in the future of the MRC’s [NIMR].6
The MRC has provided six-monthly updates on the progress of the UKCMRI since July 2008 to our predecessors and, since the general election, to us.
The inquiry 6. In October 2010 the Coalition Government announced its commitment to the UKCMRI, confirming funding of £220 million from the Department of Health as part of the Spending Review.7 Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, and representatives of the four partners signed a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) to establish the UKCMRI on 9 November 2010.8
7. We considered carrying out an inquiry in the autumn of 2010. We decided, however, to wait until Sir Paul Nurse, who had been appointed Chief Executive and Director of UKCMRI, had taken up his post in January 2011 as we wished to take oral evidence from him. The UKCMRI project is now at a crucial stage with the Chief Executive in post, Government endorsement given, finances secured and construction to begin shortly. Given the importance of this project and the value of life sciences to the future of science and economic development we considered it important to carry out an inquiry in the first half of 2011.9
8. We invited written submissions reviewing the progress of the UKCMRI since 2008 and assessing the UKCMRI’s future plans and, to assist those submitting memoranda, we suggested they address the following questions:
4 “Founder organisations”, UKCMRI website, www.ukcmri.ac.uk/about-us/founder-organisations
5 Innovation, Universities, and Skills Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, HC 185 6 HC 185 (2007–08), para 3 7 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, Cm 7942, para 1.35 8 Agreement signed to establish UKCMRI, UKCMRI press announcement, 9 November 2010, www.ukcmri.ac.uk/news/news-archive/2010/11/09/agreement-signed-to-establish-ukcmri 9 New inquiry announced: UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, Science and Technology Committee press notice no. 21, 18 November 2011.
6 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
x What do the four partners hope to achieve from the project and what new technologies and innovations are being considered?
x 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?
x What are the risk assessment arrangements to ensure the safety of the site?
x What are the arrangements for the closure of the existing National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill?
9. We received 24 submissions as well as several supplementary submissions. We would like to thank all those who submitted written evidence.
10. We held three oral evidence sessions in February and March 2011, taking evidence from four panels of witnesses, to whom we are grateful:
i. Professor Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, UCL, Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive, CR-UK, Professor Sir John Savill, Chief Executive, MRC, and Sir Mark Walport, Chief Executive, Wellcome Trust;
ii. Natalie Bennett, Chair, Rob Inglis, Press Officer, and Frankie Biney, local resident, St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action;
iii. Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director, Sir David Cooksey, Chairman, and John Cooper, Chief Operating Officer, UKCMRI; and
iv. Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, and the Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health.
11. The oral evidence and associated written evidence is published alongside this report and the remaining written evidence is published on our website at www.parliament.uk/science.
12. When we took evidence from the consortium we formed the view that some of its representatives questioned the need for our inquiry and had formed the view that as the UKCMRI had been approved by the Government the matter was closed. We take this opportunity to remind the witnesses that our remit is to scrutinise the policies and actions of the Government on science and technology matters and that Parliament will be asked to vote over £200 million of taxpayers’ money for this important project. We intend to monitor this project during this Parliament.
The structure of report 13. In this report we shall examine all aspects of the project to build the UKCMRI. In chapter 2 we examine the strategy and vision behind the UKCMRI. We consider the wider implications of the UKCMRI for the UK at chapter 3. One issue which emerged during our inquiry is the reason for the UKCMRI’s location in Brill Place, beside St Pancras in central London, which we examine in chapter 4. The suitability of the management structure and robustness of its finances, which concerned our predecessors, we examine in chapters 5
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 7
and 6. The safety and security issues are covered at chapter 7, the impact on the local community at chapter 8 and issues relating to the NIMR are at chapter 9.
8 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
2 The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation
Expectations of the project 14. During the oral evidence sessions we asked all those involved with the project what they hoped the UKCMRI would achieve. Professor Grant, President and Provost of University College London (UCL), described the UKCMRI as the “most exciting science project in Britain today”.10 Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK (CR- UK), told us that the UKCMRI would be “certainly one of the largest, if not the largest, institutes in Europe”,11 and represented the opportunity for CR-UK to build on its:
tremendously successful [London] research institute [at] Lincoln’s Inn Fields [...] which has carried out some of the most fundamental work into the understanding of cancer, how it occurs, how it spreads and the factors that drive that. For us this is about the continuation of that work, but much more so it is about making sure that we have access to resources and the creative energy that will enable us to accelerate that progress.12
15. Professor Sir John Savill, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC), explained that the “exciting thing about this for the MRC is the prospect of added value through interdisciplinarity, joining with other like-minded groups of scientists in creating what will be the biggest and most exciting development in the UK”,13 and Sir Mark Walport, Chief Executive of the Wellcome Trust, told us that he hoped the UKCMRI would “achieve extraordinary improvements in human and animal health”.14
16. Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director of UKCMRI, explained that the project was “the most exciting biomedical research initiative for a generation in the United Kingdom. It is an extremely important project. It is one which is looked upon with envy from the community around the world”,15 and Rt Hon David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, echoed Sir Paul’s words telling us that he considered the UKCMRI was “perhaps the most significant development in British biomedical science for a generation”.16
17. We acknowledge the importance of the UKCMRI project to biomedical science in the UK.
18. We examine the scientific vision and its implementation in detail from paragraph 26.
10 Q 2 11 Q 13
12 Q 2 13 Q 4 14 Q 5 15 Q 80 16 Q 136
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 9
The Joint Venture Agreement 19. The Heads of Terms for a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) were agreed in early 2010 by the four partners in the consortium and Government. Following further detailed discussions between the MRC, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, HM Treasury and the Department of Health, the JVA was signed by the chief executives of the four partners and Sir David Cooksey, on behalf of UKCMRI Ltd, in the presence of Mr Willetts and the Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health, on 9 November 2010.17
20. Through the JVA the consortium:
enter into a joint venture with UKCMRI for the purpose of establishing and operating the Centre. The Centre will operate as a single institute dedicated to advancing knowledge of the biological basis of human health, enabling translation of its research outputs to clinical utility and creating an environment that will foster and enable innovation in medical interventions and technologies.18
Preparations before the Joint Venture Agreement was signed 21. Preparations for the project predated the signing of the JVA. Back in March 2009 the four partners in the consortium appointed 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 included a Construction Director, General Counsel, Finance Director, two Scientific Directors and a Medical Director.19 As we have noted, Sir Paul Nurse took up his post as the first Director and Chief Executive of UKCMRI in January 2011 having chaired the UKCMRI Scientific Planning Committee for the previous two years.
22. The Planning Application for UKCMRI was approved by the local planning authority, Camden Council, on 16 December 2010.20 The detailed construction, fitting-out and commissioning programme has been agreed with Laing O’Rourke, the appointed main contractor. Preparatory work began on the site in early May 2011 and construction of the Centre will begin on 27 June 2011. There will then follow a two year build programme followed by two years’ fitting-out and commissioning. If everything goes to plan, the UKCMRI should therefore be able to commence operations in late Spring 2015.21
17 Ev 35, para 1.1 18 UKCMRI Joint Venture Agreement, Recitals (A). [Copies of the redacted Joint Venture Agreement for UKCMRI are available via the Charity Commission's central register: www.charity- commission.gov.uk/about_us/about_charities/faqpage.aspx] 19 Ev 37, para 10 20 “Plans approved for visionary institute: 16 December 2010”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/news/news- archive/2010/12/16/plans-approved-for-visionary-institute 21 “Construction update”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/construction
10 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Potential new partners 23. Imperial College told us in written evidence that it was “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”.22 When asked about the discussions with potential partners Sir Mark Walport indicated that they were “ongoing” and “proceeding well”.23
24. Professor Sir Richard Trainor, Principal of King’s College, submitted that “close academic links with all three major biomedical academic institutions in London (UCL, Imperial and King’s) would be of great benefit to UKCMRI” and that:
it would facilitate access by UKCMRI researchers to the translational and clinical research facilities and resources which all three institutions possess in abundance [and] provide a fulcrum through which the three London academic institutions can forge London-wide collaborations with UKCMRI and with each other.24
25. The UKCMRI issued a press release on 14 April 2011 announcing that both Imperial College and King’s College London were set to join the consortium as additional academic partners.25 We welcome the addition of Imperial College and King’s College London as new partners to the UKCMRI project.
The UKCMRI’s scientific vision 26. The rationale for the UKCMRI project is the scientific vision it has at its core. The top- level vision is to understand how living things work and use it for the benefit for humanity.26
27. From the start of the UKCMRI project the consortium decided that it would seek scientific advice from around the world. In January 2008 the members of the consortium set up a Science Planning Committee and asked Sir Paul Nurse to chair it.27 Harpal Kumar, CR-UK Chief Executive, told us that Sir Paul was “an appropriate choice as a Nobel Laureate to lead this thinking”.28
28. UKCMRI Ltd, in its submission, explained that 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 the consortium. In March 2009, the Science Planning Committee held a Horizon Scanning Workshop attended by some 50 eminent scientists from around the world and from MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), CR-UK’s London Research Institute (LRI), UCL and the Wellcome Trust. The Science Planning Committee concluded its work in April 2010, publishing a report to the
22 Ev w12, para 8 23 Q 6
24 Ev w11, para 4 25 UKCMRI press announcement, Two more leading universities plan to join scientific powerhouse, 14 April 2011 26 Q 102 27 Q 41 28 As above
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 11
UKCMRI’s consortium, which was “enthusiastically endorsed”.29 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.30 Its vision was summarised as follows:
x to research the fundamental biological processes underlying human health and disease;
x broad and deep research—capable of covering all areas of disease and all levels from the molecule to the whole organism;
x take interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to biomedical research, drawing input from chemists, physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers and others, as well as biomedical scientists;
x promote a dynamic working environment with constant refreshment of ideas and research scientists;
x drive the development and roll-out of innovative new technologies, to open new avenues of research;
x nurture a culture in which clinical and commercial translation is valued as highly as discovery research;
x build extensive networks locally, nationally and internationally, with academia, industry and the public sector;
x play a national role in developing technologies and training scientists and technical staff for the benefit of the wider UK biomedical science base; and
x engage with the public to build strong relationships both locally and nationally.31
29. The JVA explained how the vision will be put into effect:
The Chief Executive Officer, advised by the Scientific Advisory Board, will prepare the Scientific and Innovation Strategy, which will identify:
x the scientific and innovation programmes for UKCMRI;
x the capabilities and resources required effectively to accomplish commercial and clinical translation and to encourage the development of medical interventions;
x subject to the provisions of this agreement, the organisational and governance mechanisms that will ensure its successful implementation of the Scientific and Innovation Strategy; and
29 Ev 37, para 6 30 Scientific vision and research strategy, UKCMRI, June 2010 www.ukcmri.ac.uk/media/12823/tap1130_ukcrmi_brochure_v11i_web.pdf 31 Ev 36, para 3
12 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
x the funding required.32
30. In their joint memorandum CR-UK and the MRC stated that the UKCMRI presented an opportunity for them to build on the success of some of their current research institutes and would allow the MRC to optimise its contribution to translational research. CR-UK’s expectation is that moving into UKCMRI will “help to significantly accelerate progress in the fight against cancer.”33 The Wellcome Trust hoped that the UKCMRI would “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.”34 GlaxoSmithKline supported these claims in its written evidence stating that the UKCMRI “will lead ultimately to improved patient and economic benefit for the UK.”35
31. The UKCMRI’s Scientific vision and research strategy states the necessity for the Centre to have a critical mass: “Size matters not for its own sake but because it creates the critical mass necessary for successful multidisciplinary research.”36 The MRC, in their Final Full Business Case put to Government in January 2011, reiterated this point:
The founders were particularly aware of the importance of creating a facility capable of sustaining “Critical Mass” which is recognised as being scale of 1,125 scientists or more, currently not seen in the UK. This scale will enable UKCMRI to be competitive with the major new biomedical developments being built in the USA, Europe and Asia.37
32. UKCMRI’s website states that in time UKCMRI will grow to house some 1,500 staff, making it one of Europe’s largest centres of biomedical research in one building. Groups spanning the biological, clinical and physical sciences will share insight and techniques to capture a more complete understanding of life’s processes. The website explains “how the UKCMRI will blur the boundaries between ‘academic’, ‘industry’ and ‘public sector’ research, promoting interactions and collaborations to accelerate translation and innovation. Clinical liaison and technology transfer will be both encouraged and valued.”38 A key role for the UKCMRI will be to train scientists and technicians at all levels to the highest standards, preparing them for leadership roles in other biomedical research institutions across the country.39
Development of scientific and innovation strategy 33. Sir Paul Nurse explained that the driving idea behind the UKCMRI was that “things really move with brilliant individuals and brilliant individuals working together”, that the
32 UKCMRI Joint Venture Agreement, para 16.1
33 Ev 48, para 15 34 Ev 49, para 16
35 Ev w17, para 2 36 Scientific vision and research strategy, p1 37 Medical Research Council, UKCMRI Final Full Business Case, version 7, January 2011, Foreword 38 “Scientific community”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/community/scientific-community 39 “National benefits”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/community/national-benefits
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 13
best results were achieved when you have “very high-quality people” working in a “very fluid environment”.40 He explained:
What really moves the needle is excellent people. You need to identify the very best in the world—not just in this country. You attract them, you train them to the highest standards within the country to generate a set of really excellent people. This strategy self-assembles from brilliant individuals. I can’t emphasise that enough. [...] You assemble a hundred brains that are as good as you, and you give them the tools and release their creativity. You interact with them and you construct the strategy that constantly evolves.41
We examine “clustering” further in chapter 4.
34. Sir Paul has the responsibility of preparing the scientific and innovation strategy. Harpal Kumar, from CR-UK, told us that
the director of the institute [...] will establish the scientific strategy. The scientific programme will determine who needs to be given space in the building in order to accommodate that scientific programme and will allocate space and other resources accordingly, entirely driven by that programme and strategy, which [...] will be signed off by the board of UKCMRI but entirely driven by what Sir Paul Nurse determines is the right programme of research.42
Professor Savill, MRC Chief Executive, indicated that the “bones of the strategy exist” and that “the flesh will come as we move towards establishment and occupation” of the UKCMRI.43
Attracting scientists from around the world 35. Sir Paul highlighted that a key part of the strategy will be:
to attract the very best from around the world to come and work here when they are young and try to encourage them to put down roots so that the very best in the world contribute to the British economy and to the British biomedical research endeavour.44
36. The UKCMRI career structure aims to:
develop world class researchers, many of whom will go on to hold leadership positions in biomedical research institutions in the UK and across the world. One measure of UKCMRI’s future success will be that a high proportion of its alumni hold such positions.45
40 Qq 130 and 103
41 Q 102 42 Q 39 43 Q 41 44 Q 93 45 Scientific vision and research strategy, p15
14 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
The UKCMRI’s Scientific Vision and Research Strategy outlines a typical group leader’s career structure:
Table 1: UKCMRI scientific career structure A majority of UKCMRI research group leaders will be joining the institute to establish their own independent research programmes after a period of postdoctoral research. To enable its scientists to develop world-class research programmes attacking important biological questions pertinent to human health, UKCMRI will provide substantial long-term core support over a period of about 12 years, as well as a strong mentoring programme.
The UKCMRI group leader career structure will include the following: • An initial research period of six years, towards the end of which the scientific programme will be subjected to external peer review. The review will assess whether the research programme is of high quality and is making significant impact internationally. • Subject to the success of the initial review, an individual will progress to senior group leader status, and core support will be renewed for a further six years. • At the end of this second six-year period, most group leaders will have become established as international leaders in their fields and will be expected to progress to scientific leadership positions in other institutions. UKCMRI will cultivate appropriate external relationships to facilitate such transitions, particularly within the UK. The group leader mentoring programme will be used to ensure that career transitions are made smoothly. • Long-term group leader positions will become available at UKCMRI from time to time and recruitment for these positions will be on a worldwide competitive basis. Group leaders in the ‘six plus six’ career pathway will be free to apply for these positions.
Source: UKCMRI Scientific vision and research strategy, p15 37. The Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health, noted that “the career structure available in UKCMRI will be such that we will have brilliant young researchers training and becoming established at the centre and then dispersing around the country, taking their expertise with them.”46
38. Sir Paul added that the building’s layout was very much driven by the scientific vision of the project; the structure within the building, the floor lay-out, will not be departmentalised. People from different disciplines would be mixed together—the structure would not be based on discipline and would be “much more anarchic [...] where it will be driven by the individuals themselves. [...] It is a completely new way of working.”47
Science and technology at the UKCMRI 39. In our call for evidence we asked what new technologies and innovations were being considered at the UKCMRI. UKCMRI Ltd told us that the emphasis so far had 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.”48 The Science Planning Committee had devoted a “significant” portion of its work to potential programmes and had held discussions 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.49
46 Q 155 47 Q 133 48 Ev 39, para 27 49 Ev 39, para 28
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 15
40. UKCMRI Ltd’s memorandum listed potential areas of research:
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.50
41. Several areas of possible innovation opportunities were highlighted, including new therapeutic drug opportunities arising from basic science discoveries in specified disease areas, diagnostic opportunities arising from basic science discoveries, development of new technological platforms and of novel instrumentation or research platforms, and discoveries that have the potential for translation into new prevention or screening strategies.51
Conclusions 42. We have set out the UKCMRI’s strategic vision at some length for two reasons: to show the rationale behind the UKCMRI; and to provide a point of reference when we, or our successor committee, re-examine the project. We welcome the scientific vision set out for the UKCMRI. It shows, in our view, the concept of the UKCMRI is underpinned with a comprehensive, ambitious and ground-breaking scientific vision. If this can be realised,
50 Ev 39, para 30 51 Ev 39, para 31
16 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
we believe that it has an excellent chance in delivering its primary objective of benefiting mankind.
43. In chapters 3 and 4 we discuss how the UKCMRI intends to be a national asset, not just benefiting London. We welcome the addition of new partners and, to ensure the benefits of the UKCMRI flow to the whole country, we hope more partners, particularly from a wider area, will be sought.
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 17
3 Benefits for the UK
44. In the last chapter we examined the UKCMRI’s scientific vision. In this chapter we look at the potential benefits the UKCMRI’s vision offers the UK.
Translation of health research 45. UKCMRI Ltd has stated that the UKCMRI project was “developed in response to the Cooksey Report, an independent review of arrangements for funding health research in the UK”.52 This was a report, A review of UK health research funding,53 commissioned by the UK Government in 2006 and carried out by Sir David Cooksey, Chairman of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Industry Reference Group (and, as we have noted, now Chairman of the UKCMRI), that set out a vision for enhancing the effectiveness of health research in the UK.54
46. In its submission to us the consortium indicated that the “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.”55 The Cooksey Report identified cultural, institutional and financial barriers to translating research into practice in the publicly funded research arena. In addition, it also found that, in the private sector, the pharmaceuticals industry was facing increasing challenges in translating research into health and economic benefit. It recommended that the UK aim to sustain and continue to build on its excellent research base and that this was of crucial importance to the UK maintaining its global reputation as an excellent location to conduct health research. It warned that the UK was at risk of failing to reap the full economic, health and social benefits that the UK’s public investment in health research should generate and that there was no overarching UK health research strategy to ensure UK health priorities were considered through all types of research.56
47. The Report highlighted two key gaps in the translation of health research:
x translating ideas from basic and clinical research into the development of new products and approaches to treatment of disease and illness; and
x implementing those new products and approaches into clinical practice.57
48. Sir David, in oral evidence to us, indicated that the UK still had a problem “getting the translation through clinical development”, that the NHS should have a greater focus on
52 “Background”, UKCMRI website, www.ukcmri.ac.uk/about-us/background 53 A review of UK health research funding, Sir David Cooksey, HM Treasury, December 2006: www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404881/0118404881.pdf 54 A review of UK health research funding, Sir David Cooksey, HM Treasury, December 2006, Executive summary 55 Ev 48, para 10 56 A review of UK health research funding, Executive Summary 57 As above
18 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
clinical development, and that concentration on front-line services had prejudiced participation in clinical research.58
Benefits to the NHS 49. The Scientific Vision and Research Strategy document published by the UKCMRI outlined its research strategy:
cancer will naturally be a strong focus. So too will be circulatory conditions such as heart disease and stroke—with cancer, the UK’s biggest killers—as well as infections and conditions linked to an overactive immune system. Diseases of the nervous system, particularly those of later life, are likely to figure strongly. Less common disorders may also be studied, as they often generate insights of more general importance.59
50. The majority of the public funding for the UKCMRI will now come from the Department of Health. Sir Paul Nurse, UKCMRI’s Chief Executive and Director, indicated to us that the Department was putting up this money because “they see the advantages for the NHS”.60 The Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health, said that “the benefits of UKCMRI would indirectly be dispersed more widely in the NHS over time by virtue of researchers migrating from London to other centres around the country”. The Minister also told us that the links between the UKCMRI and local clinical centres of excellence would “help to define what the priorities are in the research that is undertaken and also provide a direct route through which clinical applications can be progressed”, and that where “you have a hospital trust that has exciting work going on at the cutting edge of treatment, you not only attract the best clinicians but the standard of care goes up as well”.61
51. We welcome the Department of Health’s investment in this important project and can see the positive benefits that the planned research at the UKCMRI should bring to the National Health Service. If the strategy underpinning the UKCMRI works with the dispersal of scientists and the improved translation of research throughout the UK, it will provide the NHS with a pool of talent and an extensive medical science base. We consider the question of the dispersal of the benefits expected from the UKCMRI further in the next chapter.
Pharmaceutical industry 52. On 1 February 2011 the multi-national, pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced that it would be closing its research and development (R&D) centre in Sandwich in Kent. Press reports indicated that Pfizer “would exit the site over the next 18 to 24 months as part of a global programme to create a more focussed and sustainable R&D machine”.62 When
58 Q 96
59 Scientific vision and research strategy, UKCMRI, June 2010, p 9 60 Q 88 61 Qq 159 and 162 62 “Pfizer to shut major Sandwich site, home of Viagra”, Reuters, 1 February 2011, uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/uk- pfizer-sandwich-idUKTRE7103TG20110201
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 19
we announced in February 2011 that we would take oral evidence on Pfizer’s decision, we were concerned—as the press notice we issued explained—that:
Life sciences have been identified by both this and the last Government as a priority in the UK. Pfizer’s announcement that it will be closing its research and development facility in Kent is deeply worrying. It [...] raises questions about UK plc’s ability to use science to drive the economy.63
53. When we raised Pfizer’s decision, Sir David Cooksey told us that the reason for the decision was that the “productivity of those large institutes has not delivered”, and that:
the pharmaceutical industry is changing its model and wants to work alongside institutes such as UKCMRI, the universities and other MRC and Wellcome- sponsored institutes of various types. By using that mechanism, they can get to the basic research discoveries that they need probably more quickly, and certainly more cheaply, and can focus on the ones that are most likely to bring success.64
Conclusions 54. We conclude that UKCMRI offers not only improvements to the NHS, but also is in step with the new models of operation emerging in the pharmaceutical sector. We agree with UKCMRI’s view that improved cooperation between the NHS, commercial ventures, the pharmaceutical industry and institutions like the UKCMRI should increase the speed at which basic research discoveries can be translated into clinical practice and enhance the effectiveness of medical research in the UK.
63 “Committee to hear evidence on Pfizer's decision to close its research and development facility at Sandwich in Kent”, Science and Technology Committee press notice 34, 4 February2011 64 Q 95
20 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
4 Location
Introduction 55. One issue which emerged during our inquiry was the location of the UKCMRI in central London. It will be situated on Brill Place in Somers Town in the London Borough of Camden, adjacent to the British Library and across the road from St Pancras International railway station. UKCMRI Ltd, the consortium and the Government were clear that a central London location was important: it would facilitate important collaborations between the ‘cluster’ of scientific, academic and healthcare institutions already situated in central London.65
Figure 1: Central London map showing the UKCMRI amidst a cluster of research and clinical centres.
Medical Research Council
UKCMRI Site
Wellcome Trust
UCL main campus
Cancer Research UK LRI Labs
Source: UKCMRI [www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/the-local-area/location-map] ; scale [———————] 500 m.
65 “The local area”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/the-local-area
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 21
Table 2: Index to Figure 1 1. CR-UK LRI Labs 19. Royal College of Physicians
2. MRC 20. Royal College of Surgeons of England
3. UCL main campus 21. Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital
4. Wellcome Trust 22. Royal Society
5. Arthritis Research Campaign 23. Royal Society of Medicine
6. Cancer Research UK head office 24. Royal Veterinary College
7. Eastman Dental Hospital 25. School of Pharmacy, University of London
8. Great Ormond Street Hospital 26. St Barts Hospital
9. Hospital for Tropical Diseases 27. St Pancras Hospital
10. King’s College London 28. The Heart Hospital
11. London School of Hygiene & Tropical 29. UCL Cancer Institute Medicine including MRC International Nutrition Group
12. Moorfields Eye Hospital 30. UCL Institute for Women’s Health
13. MRC Cell Biology Unit 31. UCL Institute of Child Health including MRC Centre for Epidemiology for Child Health
14. MRC Clinical Trials Unit 32. UCL Institute of Neurology including MRC Prion Unit
15. MRC General Practice Research Framework 33. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology
16. MRC/UCL Centre for Medical Molecular 34. UCL Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Virology Research
17. MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing 35. University College London Hospital
18. National Hospital for Neurology & 36. Wellcome Collection including Wellcome Neurosurgery including MRC Centre for Library Neuromuscular Diseases
Source: UKCMRI [www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/the-local-area/location-map] 56. The location is not a new issue. Our predecessor Committee highlighted some potential problems with the chosen site when questioning the consortium in December 2007.66 It asked the consortium about the appropriateness of moving work on dangerous pathogens from the Medical Research Council’s (MRC) National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill (NIMR) into central London and whether a site outside London, had been considered. Similar areas of concerns were raised at the session held on 9 February 2011, particularly how necessary it was to have the UKCMRI in central London.67
66 HC 185 (2007–08), Qq 32–47 67 For example, Qq 15 and 36
22 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
History of the UKCMRI’s location 57. Given the concerns of our predecessor Committee and the representations we received from local residents we considered it important to examine how the St Pancras site had been selected.
58. When the formation of a centre of medical research had been agreed in principle, the four partners in the consortium drew up a list of possible locations. Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director of UKCMRI, made it clear to us that the MRC’s NIMR site at Mill Hill, North London, having been built in the 1930s was no longer “fit for purpose”.68 The current Director of NIMR, Jim Smith, suggested that, while Mill Hill was fit for purpose for now it was “unlikely to remain so [...] without substantial investment” and he explained that “the distance of NIMR from academic and clinical partners, and its poor transport links, jeopardise its position as a world-leading research centre.”69 The NIMR site at Mill Hill is located nine miles to the north of the UKCMRI, roughly half an hour’s drive away and nine stops on the Northern underground line.70
Figure 2: Map showing location of the UKCMRI and the MRC’s National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) site at Mill Hill
NIMR Site
UKCMRI Site
Source: Microsoft Bing maps
59. It appears that it had been recognised for some time that the facilities at Mill Hill would need to be replaced. In 2007 Professor Grant, President and Provost, University College London (UCL), told our predecessor Committee that:
there was a time at which it was proposed, for example, that the NIMR laboratories should move to Cambridge. There was then a decision taken by a special scientific
68 Q 88 69 Ev w1, paras 4–5 70 The AA website route planner: http://www.theaa.com/route-planner/index.jsp; Transport for London underground map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 23
committee that had been set up by the MRC to reconsider that decision and to look at possibilities within London, and then eventually to run a competition between King’s College, London and University College London, and a decision was taken in February 2005 that the London option should prevail and that it should be a site in central London adjacent to UCL. That was the culmination of a process of decision- making that had taken place over a decade or more.71
60. In oral evidence this year Professor Grant confirmed that the:
original proposal was for the group at NIMR at Mill Hill to join us at UCL. The site that had been chosen for that was the National Temperance Hospital site in Hampstead Road, which was significantly smaller; indeed it was under one acre.72
Sir Paul Nurse added that he had been on the scientific review body in 2004 “when the MRC was thinking of moving the institute at Mill Hill to [...] the National Temperance Hospital.”73
61. We note, that in answering a written question on 20 June 2007, the then Minister of State for Science and Innovation, Malcolm Wicks MP, said that the “MRC [had] paid £28 million for the National Temperance Hospital site”.74 In answer to another question on the same day on consultations about the future of the NIMR he said that:
[the] interim Director of NIMR, Sir Keith Peters, communicates regularly with NIMR staff about the development of a business case including the option of relocating NIMR to the National Temperance hospital site, as well as work to determine the feasibility of relocation to a larger site adjacent to the British Library. No decision has been made.75
62. It appears that by the end of 2007 the Hospital site was set aside in favour of the larger site at St Pancras. Sir Paul Nurse told us that the Hospital site “was not a good plan. The site was too small, it wasn’t well thought through.”76 In a memorandum to our predecessors following the oral evidence session in December 2007 the MRC said that “Alternative sites outside London have been considered since the purchase of the NHT”.77 Sites in Manchester and Cambridge were judged as best comparators with the British Library site.78
63. In June 2008, following Government approval, the consortium completed the purchase of the 3.5 acres site for the UKCMRI at Brill Place, adjacent to the British Library. The sale was completed on 13 June 2008.79 The land was purchased from the Department for
71 HC (2007–08) 185, Q 34 72 Q 36
73 Q 84 74 HC Deb. 20 June 2007, col 1822W
75 HC Deb, 20 June 2007, col 1823W 76 Q 84 77 HC (2007–08) 185, Ev 15 78 As above 79 Ev 35, para 1.4
24 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Culture, Media and Sport for £85 million, of which £46.75 million was provided by the MRC.80
Why Central London? 64. Some of the evidence we received was against a central London location for the UKCMRI. The St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (SPA), a local group, claimed that the “superlab” design was “unsightly and unsympathetic and dominates its surroundings”.81 Action for our Planet considered the location was wrong and that it was being located in a densely populated residential area with a “chronic shortage of housing”.82 We consider that questions about the design and aesthetics of the proposed building are outside the scope of our inquiry and we do not propose to comment on them. Those who had concerns about the central London location for the UKCMRI also raised concerns about construction challenges, costs, and safety and security; we consider these factors in chapters 5, 6 and 7.
65. Natalie Bennett, SPA’s Chair, argued against the necessity of physical proximity with other institutions in central London:
in this day and age, given that we all have Skype, video-conferencing and instant messaging. I am sure that most of us in our daily lives use those and are quite close to people we may never even have met but with whom we have regular contact. Why is it the case, in this day and age, that clustering requires a physical proximity? That is a very 20th century idea in the 21st century.83
She added that:
Pharmaceutical companies seem to be moving away from large centralised research facilities, as we have seen recently with Pfizer at Sandwich. Is this actually the way forward or is this a 20th century dinosaur that is being left?84
66. There was unanimity amongst those supporting the UKCMRI that a central London location was essential to the success of the project. Sir Paul Nurse stressed that:
the central London position is absolutely crucial, because you could not put such a place anywhere else in the country for it to work. You need that because of the good transport. You can get to 80% of the population within two hours by train. [...] If you put it in Manchester or Liverpool [...] it would already be seen as regional. It is difficult, but if it is in London, it can serve that national role. I really want to emphasise the national role that it plays [...] We will get the best coming in because people like to come to London. It is a place that the rest of the world thinks about as
80 Ev 46, para 6.1 81 Ev 53, para 1 82 Ev w16, para 3 83 Q 66 84 As above
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 25
a place to live and work. If you are a 25-year-old, it is an exciting place to come, so that means we can attract people. We want them to put down roots.85
He added that:
The interactions and close contact in central London which allows you to access those disciplines are impossible on a distant site such as Mill Hill. Physicists, chemists, engineers, computing engineers and so on will all be either within walking distance or a short distance on public transport. That is quite difficult if you are in a more isolated site.86
67. The members of the consortium expressed strong support for central London. Professor Savill, from MRC, explained that:
Very careful thought was given to where the best place to have a major interdisciplinary institute would be. We took international advice. We consulted widely. There is unanimity on central London being an attractive site because of its international connections and its attraction to international scientists. If you look at the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration analysis of health research spend in 2006, it shows that 33% of the UK’s health research money was spent in London. I think it makes sense to have a high scale institute here. We have looked very carefully at this site and conclude that it is in the right place.87
Professor Savill drew attention to a peer-reviewed paper, Does Collocation inform the impact of Collaboration,88 “which says that collocation is the best form of driving collaboration and added value.”89
68. Sir Mark Walport, Chief Executive of the Wellcome Trust, told us that:
Science thrives best in a clustered environment where there is actually a critical mass of scientists from different disciplines and hospitals. Look at Boston, where there is an enormous cluster which has developed around Harvard and MIT. UKCMRI is positioned at the absolute heart of the cluster in the south-east, so there are the London colleges, Stevenage, Cambridge and the Sanger Institute just up the road, with Oxford not far to the west. It is absolutely in the right place.90
69. The Government also saw advantages in having the UKCMRI located in central London. The Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, explained that:
What we will see happening is a two-way engagement between UKCMRI and centres such as University College Hospital, King’s and Imperial, the major London
85 Qq 117–118 86 Q 133
87 Q 15 88 Kyungjoon Lee, John S. Brownstein, Richard G. Mills, and Isaac S. Kohane, Does Collocation inform the impact of Collaboration, PLoS ONE, December 2010, Volume 5, issue 12 89 Q 44 90 Q 15
26 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
centres for research, with a two-way flow of ideas, with clinicians on the ground identifying clinical problems which need to be solved, scientists in the centre picking up those pointers and we hope a much quicker flow of ideas coming through to benefit patients. The location of the building, I am clear, is of major advantage in that sense.91
Sir Paul Nurse also stressed the importance of “being close to London hospitals—the biggest patient resource in the country”,92 and David Willets MP, Minister for Universities and Science, pointed out that:
The fact is that there is a concentration of leading hospitals and academic institutions, such as University College, located nearby [...] does mean that London and the golden triangle [...] does tend to attract research.93
70. We note that in a recent report, All together now,94 NESTA95 put the argument for the importance of co-located facilities and clusters. The report stated that clusters “generate a level of cross-fertilisation between industry, academics, biotech companies and clinics” and it highlighted the benefits of having the:
ability to walk down the hall to chat with a colleague and sit in on research meetings and talks, mak[ing] collaboration easier. It is often these informal unscheduled interactions that generate the personal relationships that are so important to successful working together.96
Conclusions 71. UKCMRI Ltd, the four members of the consortium and the Government have put forward for a strong case for locating the UKCMRI close to leading hospitals and academic institutions. It has to be recognised, however, that there is a premium to be paid for locating the UKCMRI in central London. The financial costs of developing the site in central London are considerably higher than for a site outside of central London. In addition, we received no satisfactory evidence on the running costs of locating the UKCMRI in a central London site in comparison to sites outside central London. We are not convinced that St Pancras would be an obviously better location for the UKCMRI than Mill Hill for leading scientists. We question, given the higher living costs required to live in central London, whether many of the scientists working at the UKCMRI will reside in central London. In addition, the location of the UKCMRI will reinforce the concentration of life sciences in the "golden triangle" in the south-east of England.
91 Q 151
92 Q 135 93 Q 155
94 NESTA, All together now: Improving the cross-sector collaboration in the UK biomedical industry, Research report: March 2011 95 NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts and in its own words, an independent body with a mission to make the UK more innovative. 96 NESTA, All together now: Improving the cross-sector collaboration in the UK biomedical industry, Research report: March 2011, pp 36–38
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 27
72. Given that planning permission has been granted, the initial construction contract has been signed and the groundbreaking ceremony is imminent, it is clear to us that there is no realistic possibility of the UKCMRI being located anywhere other than at St Pancras. In order to offset the premium which will have to be paid for locating the UKCMRI in central London and the subsequent loss of funds for research, we consider that it is essential that a detailed strategy for dispensing the benefits of the UKCMRI throughout the UK is drawn up and promulgated before the UKCMRI opens in 2015.
28 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
5 Construction and management
73. In its 2008 Report UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, our predecessor Committee had concerns about “the timetable and project management of this ambitious scheme.”97 We were therefore keen to examine the issues surrounding the Centre’s construction and the current and proposed management structures of the project.
Construction of the UKCMRI 74. Work on construction of the UKCMRI at Brill Place is due to start on 27 June 2011.98 There will be two phases. UKCMRI Ltd told us that “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.”99 On the basis of the written evidence that we received from the consortium and UKCMRI we set out below at Table 3 the key milestones for the construction project.
Table 3: UKCMRI key milestones Milestone Expected date
Commence Early Construction Works April/May 2011
Execute Main Construction Contract June 2012
Determine Research Programmes By December 2012
Construction completed Second quarter 2015
Building handover Third quarter 2015
Fitting-out and populating the building Autumn 2015 onwards
Process complete 2017
Source: Written and oral evidence from the consortium.100 75. The building has been designed to be used for up to 80 years.101 The completed building will be 90,000 square metres in size externally, containing about 83,000 square metres of floor space.102 The building has been designed to hold 1,268 research spaces and 31% of the building will be allocated to machinery and fixtures.103
76. David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, told us that the contracting process had been split into two stages: the first phase was clearing the site and the basement and the second erecting the building.104 As we have noted, in March 2011 Laing O’Rourke
97 HC (2007–08) 185, para 6 98 “Construction update”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/construction (to be announced) 99 Ev 38, para 21
100 Ev 47, para 7 [Written evidence received January 2011]; Qq 23 and 25 101 Q 86 102 Q 87 103 Ev 42; Medical Research Council, UKCMRI Final Full Business Case, version 7, January 2011, Para 1.1.6 104 Q 139
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 29
was awarded the contract to lead the first phase of UKCMRI’s construction.105 Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive of CR-UK, told us that following Camden Council’s decision to grant planning permission in December 2010 there were no obstacles in the way and that work was expected to commence shortly.106
Potential problems 77. We considered what problems may frustrate the opening of the UKCMRI in 2015 and UKCMRI Ltd’s plans to address any difficulties. UKCMRI Ltd acknowledged that the UKCMRI would be built in a highly restricted area, surrounded by critical infrastructure and densely populated residential streets. The project would cause a high level of disruption to the area for a number of years. Anticipated problems include noise and air pollution, high levels of construction vehicles and spoil disposal, and disruptive road closures. The UKCMRI would go down four floors below ground level and would therefore face a number of challenges, for example the lowest levels of the construction site would fall below the water table,107 problems which would not have been faced if an alternative location outside central London had been chosen.
Figure 3: Map showing the UKCMRI’s location with nearby underground lines
UKCMRI Site
Source: Microsoft Bing maps 78. The Northern Line and Victoria Line underground tunnels (the light blue and black lines in Figure 3 above) are situated close to the UKCMRI—the lines run directly beneath the adjacent British Library where vibrations can be felt in the basement.108 On the tube line vibrations, Sir Mark Walport, from Wellcome Trust, said that:
105 “Construction Update”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/construction 106 Q 7; see also Camden Council Development Control Committee minutes, 16 December 2010. democracy.camden.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=1429 107 Ev 53, para 2a 108 Ev 53, para 2b
30 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
that issue has been raised. For example, at University College, just off the Euston Road, there is a combined nanoscience centre where vibrations are absolutely critical. It is within yards of the tube line. Modern technology enables that to be handled without difficulty. This has all been thought of.109
Professor Savill, from the MRC, added that:
42 members of NIMR staff have been involved in the scientific planning. I have had the opportunity to speak to the director of research who leads on nuclear magnetic resonance analysis where vibration is a potential issue, and I have been personally reassured that the expert scientists are completely happy with the provisions.110
79. Professor Grant, President and Provost of University College London (UCL), told us that the site had “very limited scope for expansion”.111 We were concerned that this constraint would be a problem if the UKCMRI required additional laboratories. Responding to our concerns Sir Paul Nurse, while accepting that the “site is quite constrained”,112 stated that the restrictive size was deliberate:
You need a certain size for critical mass, but you also need a size that you can actually run as a single unit. We are getting near the limit of the maximum size that you can run. I don’t think we could run in the rather intimate way that would work well with a much bigger size, therefore, needing a bigger site.113
80. John Cooper, UKCMRI’s Chief Operating Officer, accepted that there “are lots of challenges that we will have to deal with, but we have a good team.” He continued, “[we] have a very good construction director who has worked on a number of major projects [...] We have a bunch of people who know what they are doing.”114 He concluded by reassuring us that he was “very confident but not complacent” that the UKCMRI would be built on time.115
Overseeing delivery of the project 81. UKCMRI Ltd explained that it:
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.116
109 Q 27
110 As above 111 Q 37
112 Q 120 113 As above 114 Q 89 115 As above 116 Ev 36, para 1
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 31
The UKCMRI became a registered charity with the Charity Commission on 26 January 2011.117
82. As we have noted, in March 2009 the four partners in the consortium set up an Executive team to take responsibility for the delivery and operation of UKCMRI. John Cooper from the Wellcome Trust was appointed Interim Chief Executive of UKCMRI from June 2009. The Executive team included a Construction Director, General Counsel, Finance Director, two Scientific Directors and a Medical Director.118 UKCMRI said in its memorandum that arrangements were “in hand to appoint suitably experienced people to lead Transition Management and Human Resources.”119
83. During 2008 and 2009, a full professional team was appointed by the consortium. 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).120
84. A Construction Project Board has been established which supports the Executive Team of UKCMRI in the day-to-day management of the construction. The Board meets monthly. At the time it submitted evidence UKCMRI Ltd was managing the tender exercise for stage one of a two-stage construction contract. A recommendation on the preferred contractor was made to the Construction Project Board and a Pre-Construction Agreement was signed on 11 March 2011 with Laing O’Rourke being appointed to lead the construction, which will start in late June.121
UKCMRI governance 85. As we have noted, Sir Paul Nurse has been appointed Director and Chief Executive Officer of UKCMRI from January 2011.122 The Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), completed in November 2010, outlined the following key governance features: x 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. Sir David Cooksey has agreed to be the first Chairman of UKCMRI. x UKCMRI will operate as a single institute with a unified research strategy under the leadership of the Chief Executive Officer and board of UKCMRI.123
117 Charity Commission website: www.charity- commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1140062&Su bsidiaryNumber=0
118 Ev 37, para 10
119 As above 120 Ev 37, para 8 121 “Construction Update”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/construction 122 Ev 38, para 19 123 Ev 38, para 18
32 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
86. The JVA outlined the maximum commitments of the four founding partners in the consortium to UKCMRI’s construction costs and stated funding conditions for the operation and maintenance of the UKCMRI. A commitment by the Medical Research Council (MRC) to fund its share of construction costs required approval by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and Treasury Ministers of the MRC’s Final Business Case. BIS gave approval to the Final Business Case in February 2011.124 (We shall examine the UKCMRI’s business case in the next chapter.)
87. In his oral evidence Sir Mark Walport, from the Wellcome Trust, pointed out that there were now “very clear lines of governance with a very strong executive team”.125 Sir Paul explained his role:
I have the CEO position for five years, renewable for a further five years. For the first five years I will be setting up the institute. I will provide the strategic leadership to get the building in place, to develop ways in which the institute can operate well, to develop the scientific strategy and to merge two institutes that form 70% to 80% of the final institute [...]. After that first five years of setting it up, if the board still wishes it, I will take on running the institute.126
Sir Paul said that he would be accountable to the UKCMRI Board.127 While highlighting that the UKCMRI had “an extraordinarily strong backing team”,128 he accepted that ultimately as regards the UKCMRI’s success “the buck stops with me”.129
Track records 88. As well as sound plans it is important to have a proven track record in project management. When we pressed the members of the consortium on their ability to deliver the project on time and within budget, Sir Mark Walport, drew attention to Wellcome’s track record:
the Diamond Synchrotron [at Harwell] did come in on time and in budget, the headquarters building of the Wellcome Trust on Euston Road, which is a very large building, came in on time and in budget, and the extension to the Sanger Institute which we built, which is a major scientific institute outside Cambridge, came in on time and in budget.130
We noted that Sir David Cooksey, Chairman of UKCMRI, had been chairman at Wellcome throughout the design and building of the Diamond Synchrotron. Sir Paul Nurse also drew attention to his track record in running institutes:
124 Ev 51, para 1 125 Q 19
126 Q 80 127 Q 101 128 Q 83 129 Q 98 130 Q 32
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 33
this is the third major building research facility I have been involved with. I initiated one in Cambridge for about 400 people, I have just completed one in New York for about 600 people, at a total cost of $350 million, and now I am involved in this one.131
Government involvement 89. While acknowledging that the Government was a major funder, Sir Paul pointed out that it was “a part-funder” and that the UKCMRI Board was independent.132 Mr Willetts told us that the Government would be represented on the final UKCMRI board through the MRC and that an observer from BIS currently sits on the Construction Board.133 Mr Willets explained that the observer’s role:
is to ensure that [the Government stays] in close touch with the project and get[s] the information that we need on the progress of the project. It means that there is an opportunity for us to keep in very close touch with the partners.134
Conclusions 90. From the evidence we received it is apparent that clear management arrangements for the construction phase and the operational phases of the UKCMRI have been developed and put in place. We welcome the appointment of Sir Paul Nurse as Chief Executive Officer for the next five years and note that he brings considerable experience in setting up and running similar organisations.
91. We have set out in this chapter a number of challenges in constructing the building at St Pancras. The consortium and UKCMRI Ltd are confident that they can address these issues to complete the building on time and point to similar problems in other construction sites in central London which have been successfully addressed. Time will tell if their confidence is well placed.
92. We have some concerns about the lack of opportunities to expand on the Brill Place site. This means that the UKCMRI will not have potential for future expansion once the building is fully occupied. While we accept Sir Paul Nurse’s view that this site is at the maximum size for a single unit, we are uneasy that the option of expansion is closed off.
131 Q 99 132 Q 94 133 Qq 148 and 144 134 Q 145
34 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
6 Financing the project
Introduction 93. When our predecessor Committee examined the UKCMRI project in 2007-08 the estimated cost was £500 million, which included nearly £300 million of public funds through the Medical Research Council (MRC).135 When the Government announced its commitment to UKCMRI in October 2010, it confirmed funding of £220 million from the Department of Health as part of the 2010 Spending Review.136 We now know that the “initial investment” for the project has risen to an estimated £645 million, including £300 million of charitable funds, £300 million from the MRC (including the DoH funding) and £45 million from University College London (UCL).137 We note, however, that these figures are for the bricks and mortar aspects of the project only and do not include the full cost of fitting out the UKCMRI.138 The operating costs are estimated to be approximately £100 million a year and will be borne by the members of the consortium.139 The consortium considered the budget for the project to be “robust and realistic”.140
94. We tested this assertion. In this chapter we set out to establish what the total costs are for constructing the UKCMRI, fitting it out and operating it. On the other side of the account we seek to establish how these costs are to be financed.
UKCMRI’s business case 95. The UKCMRI has already been subject to extensive scrutiny. The MRC told us that it had submitted three iterations of its business case before the end of 2010, all of which had been approved.141 David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, told us that the
business case has been scrutinised several times by the Office of Government Commerce. [...] Every time, it has withstood the most careful scrutiny as a very valuable project.142
The project has been subject to a Gateway O143 and three MPRG144 reviews in the last two years. UKCMRI Ltd considered that the results of these reviews to have been “very satisfactory given the project’s complexity”.145
135 HC (2007–08) 185, para 6 136 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, Cm 7942, October 2010, para 1.35 137 Ev 40, para 33.5 138 We cover the project costs in paragraphs 98-103.
139 Qq 2-5; Ev 49, para 21 140 Ev 40, para 33 141 As above
142 Q 137 143 The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway Process examines programmes and projects at key decision points in their lifecycle. It looks ahead to provide assurance that they can progress successfully to the next stage; the process is best practice in central civil government, the health sector, local government and Defence. OGC Gateway Reviews deliver a "peer review" in which independent practitioners from outside the programme/project use their experience and expertise to examine the progress and likelihood of successful delivery of the programme or project. Gateway 0 is a programme-only review that investigates the direction and planned outcomes of the programme,
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 35
96. The MRC’s Final Full Business Case was submitted to the Government in early January 2011 and Professor Savill, MRC’s Chief Executive, told us on 9 February that he had “just heard that the MRC’s final full business case has been approved by the Government”. Although at that stage he did not know the details, he added that it was “a very significant development and good news for the project.”146 We asked whether there were any conditions attached to the Government’s approval of the Final Full Business Case. In a supplementary memorandum the UKCMRI explained that approval had been granted on the following conditions:
x There is no successful challenge to the Planning Consent granted by the London Borough of Camden on 16 December 2010;
x 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;
x 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;
x UKCMRI provides a certificate to the MRC that VAT is not payable in respect to the building;
x 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;
x The MRC obtains the department’s agreement to the schedule of transition costs; and
x The MRC continues to ensure provision for a BIS representative to attend the UKCMRI Construction Project Board as an observer.147
97. When he gave evidence a week after the consortium partners, John Cooper, UKCMRI’s Chief Operating Officer, who has responsibility for delivering the project, told us that none of these conditions gave him “any concerns”.148
The project costs 98. We asked the chief executives of the consortium partners what their organisations’ investments in the UKCMRI project were. Table 4 below summarises the data in their answers in oral evidence.149
together with the progress of its constituent projects. It is repeated over the life of the programme at key decision points. (Taken from OGC’s website at: www.ogc.gov.uk/what_is_ogc_gateway_review.asp.) 144 Major Projects Review Group (MPRG) is a scrutiny panel for major central government projects, sponsored by HM Treasury. Its aim is to deliver better value for the taxpayer by challenging projects on deliverability, affordability and value for money (from “Major Projects Review Group” on OGC’s website at www.ogc.gov.uk/programmes___projects_major_projects_review_group.asp).
145 Ev 40, para 33.1 146 Q 7 147 Ev 51, para 1 148 Q 110 149 Qq 2–5
36 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Table 4: Consortium contributions to UKCMRI project Overall investment (£ millions)
Cancer Research UK 1801
Medical Research Council 3002
University College London 45
Wellcome Trust 120
Total 645 (1) Includes £20 million for the provision of facilities at CR-UK’s Clare Hall site (2) Includes £220 million from the Department of Health
99. Professor Savill said that the rounded up figure of £650 million was “essentially to deliver the building and some of the fittings.”150 The consortium’s memorandum states that “the construction project can be delivered within the agreed budget of £541 million.”151 Professor Savill continued: “There is a separate tranche of funding that will be needed for equipment and other transitional costs. [...] MRC’s contribution to that will be some £65 million in addition to [the £650 million].”152 Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), clarified “everything that is fixed in terms of equipment is included within [...] the £650 million.”153 Professor Savill added that “[w]hile these sums are eye- wateringly large, they are commensurate with the kind of investments we are seeing in Singapore, the USA, Germany or China. We believe that this is an appropriate scale of investment.”154
100. At the following week’s oral evidence session Mr Cooper provided more detail. He told us that the figures quoted included the construction cost, land purchase (£85 million) and an estimation of CR-UK’s contribution.155 Understandably, he could not give us precise figures because of the commercially confidential nature of the bidding process but told us that:
We have a contingency that is about 15% of the construction cost. [...] We also have a contingency for inflation. All those things get factored into the total cost. But if you look at the actual basic construction cost of this building it has a “4” in front of it, not a “6”.156
101. Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director of UKCMRI, emphasised the contribution towards the costs from non-public sources when he said we should:
150 Q 13 151 Ev 37, para 12
152 Q 13 153 As above 154 As above 155 Q 85 156 As above
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 37
remember that half the costs for the building and more than half the costs for the operations are coming from non-government sources. They are coming from two major charities, a fund-raising charity, CR-UK, the Wellcome Trust and also a university. I would suggest that it is a bargain for Government funding.157
He pointed out that:
this is a building usable for up to 70 or 80 years. If you think on that time scale, then, once again, the investment is in a good quality building [...]. It will be a very good building for the future.158
102. On fitting out the building, Sir Paul estimated the cost between:
£45 million to £105 million, depending on how much we transfer from the previous institutes. If we transfer most of it, the figure will be £45 million. If we buy new, it will be £105 million. That is the bracket within which we are working.159
103. When we asked the Ministers about the levels of Government funding in this project, The Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health, said that his Department was “very comfortable with this level of contribution [and] see this project as very much in the interests of the NHS and patients over the longer term.”160 Mr Willetts added that the DoH contribution was “incredibly welcome”.161
Operational costs 104. Sir Mark Walport, from the Wellcome Trust, told us that the running costs for the UKCMRI once it opened were estimated at about “£100 million as the baseline, but it is likely to be much larger than that.”162 He continued that:
This is an institute where the scientists will write grants. They will have the capacity to raise research funds from the whole diversity of UK funders, the European research councils and the national institutes of health. It is impossible precisely to define that now, but we are talking about a baseline of, probably, around £100 million.163
Sir Paul Nurse confirmed that the UKCMRI’s “operational costs will be above £100 million”.164
105. Of the £100 million baseline approximately £42 million would be from the public purse (through the MRC) with a similar sum coming from Cancer Research UK.165
157 Q 86 158 As above
159 Q 88 160 Q 147 161 Q 156 162 Q 14 163 As above 164 Q 86 165 Q 111
38 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Professor Savill pointed out to us that the MRC was able to “make new commitments of nearly £400 million each year”166 and we drew the inference that these costs were financeable.
106. The evidence we heard indicates that the running costs of the UKCMRI could be significantly above the originally proposed £100 million per year, with roughly 50% of the baseline coming from the taxpayer via the MRC. Any additional funding above the baseline was likely to come from a variety of research grants. The MRC’s likely contribution to the baseline was going to be approximately £42 million per annum. The MRC assured us that it expected to be able to finance its contribution. This level of financing seems reasonable and we recommend that the Government gives a long-term commitment to the MRC for UKCMRI funding.
Budgetary control 107. A number of submissions expressed concerns about the level of expenditure and whether the estimates would prove to be reliable. Professor Guy Dodson, a former National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) employee, was concerned that “£600 million [...] will turn out simply not [to] be sufficient.”167 St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (SPA) said that 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.168
Rob Inglis, SPA Press Officer, in oral evidence asked us to:
consider the tremendous cost of the building, the time involved and that during that time money is not being spent directly on scientific research.169
108. We pressed for assurances from the four partners in the consortium, UKCMRI Ltd and the Government that the quoted costs were reliable and controllable and that the charitable stream of funding would be used appropriately. Sir Mark Walport told us on several occasions that the project would not overrun and that the consortium were “confident that this will be delivered on time and in budget”.170
109. When asked whether he felt confident that the project would be brought in on time and on budget Mr Willetts stated that the Government had:
set a financial envelope along with the other partners for the total cost of this project. It must not exceed that envelope, there is no funding from the taxpayer to pay for
166 Q 45 167 Ev w18, para 2.2 168 Ev 52, foreword 169 Q 67 170 Qq 16, 26 and 32
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 39
anything in excess of that envelope, and it is very important that this project does not overrun.171
The Minister added that that the Office of Government Commerce had reviewed the finances on several occasions, most recently in July 2010 and in January 2011 and had given the project “a Delivery Confidence Assessment of Amber-Green. That is regarded as a good ranking, given that it is still more than four years from the expected delivery date”.172 Mr Willetts also highlighted that there would be an observer from BIS (as already noted) on the UKCMRI construction project board to:
ensure that we do stay in close touch with the project and get the information that we need on the progress of the project. It means that there is an opportunity for us to keep in very close touch with the partners.173
Looking further ahead, Sir David Cooksey, Chairman of UKCMRI, told us that:
there will be a review every five years. The level of support the Government gives, through the MRC, will depend very much on the satisfactory reviews that take place at that five-year interval.174
110. When asked about strategies should finances become a difficulty Sir Paul replied that UKCMRI Ltd had:
some flexibility. We can mothball a part of the institute, which would save a little money. We could, of course, look at our running costs. The fact is that that would delay the costs by a year or two, but there is not a plan B in the sense that we have two institutes that are in decaying infrastructure and we can’t leave them there. We have to solve this problem. But I wouldn’t want this Committee to think that we are not really on top of costs, because we are really on top of costs.175
When we asked about the current economic climate and whether this could affect the project, Sir Paul pointed out that:
the cuts we are experiencing in the UK are not confined to the UK. [The] world looks with envy upon the fact that we are starting something new in a period of gloom and despond, and something that will be very attractive on the world stage.176
111. Concerns were also put to us that funding of the UKCMRI may not be the most effective use of charities’ resources. The Camden Green Party said that:
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 Leyland told the council planning hearing that as a voluntary fundraiser and donor for cancer
171 Q 146
172 Q 144 173 Q 145 174 Q 94 175 Q 100 176 Q 93
40 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
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.177
In response to such concerns Sir David Cooksey pointed out that:
The Wellcome Trust is very much dedicated to building places to carry out good science as well as funding the science itself. In the case of Cancer Research UK, they are having a special fund-raising subscription to this institute. From that point of view, the people providing that funding will know exactly where it is going.178
112. We have pressed all the parties to the UKCMRI on costs. They have given what we take to be firm assurances, for which we are grateful. We received no evidence that these have been given lightly or that they are not backed with firm costings. Those who have sought to challenge them have pointed to a history of major projects in the UK running over budget and over time. It would be neither reasonable nor sensible to conclude that because other projects have gone awry this one will as well. The Committee was relieved to hear that the taxpayer would not be liable to pay should the project overrun. The credibility of the consortium partners and the Government is on the line.
Other financial issues 113. With the large costs involved in setting up and operating the UKCMRI we examined other possible streams of funding available to the project—Intellectual Property (IP) rights and the sale of consortium assets—as well as the knock-on effects on other MRC science projects.
114. The quality of research at UKCMRI is expected to support it in securing external funding from other UK, EU and international bodies.179 GlaxoSmithKline describe their investment in the UK as “based firmly on our ability to work closely with world-class collaborative partners in biomedical research”.180
115. The four members of the consortium stated in their joint memorandum that funding contributions from potential new partners would be directed into accelerating the establishment of the UKCMRI, and they expected that returns from the sale of the site of the former National Temperance Hospital and the existing NIMR site at Mill Hill would be available to the MRC to support transitional costs (see section below).181
177 Ev w21, para 5 178 Q 88 179 Ev 49, para 21 180 Ev w17, para 4 181 Ev 50, para 23
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 41
Intellectual Property 116. When we asked who would own the Intellectual Property (IP)—the patents, trademarks, designs and copyright that the scientists and researchers created at the UKCMRI—Sir Mark Walport, from the Wellcome Trust, told us that the “intellectual property will be held by the institute itself”.182 John Cooper, UKCMRI’s Chief Operating Officer, explained, however, that in the business model the UKCMRI “have not assumed any income from IP” and that any income received through IP would be put into funding research at the Centre.183 Nor did Sir Paul Nurse see IP as providing a “golden cash cow” but that “the IP issue should be used more to promote [the public ventures of the NHS and also not-for-profits] than simply seeing it as a source of income.”184
117. We note that the funding of the UKCMRI is not dependent upon a constant stream of income generated directly from Intellectual Property rights and that any income generated from this source will be ploughed back into research funding. We consider that this strategy is a sensible basis on which to plan and will ensure that the UKCMRI has financial stability.
National Temperance Hospital 118. The issue of the former National Temperance Hospital (NTH), situated a few streets away from Brill Place on the Hampstead Road, has been a key factor in the financing of the UKCMRI project. The former hospital is located close to the main University College London (UCL) campus and Wellcome Trust headquarters; it has been boarded up and empty since it closed in the early 1990s. As we noted earlier, the site was purchased by the MRC in 2006 for £28 million with a further £0.8 million spent on development costs.185
119. The use to which the NTH site will be put will affect its value and therefore the receipt which will be realised. Rt Hon Frank Dobson MP, whose constituency contains both the former NTH site and the proposed site for the UKCMRI, in written evidence expressed concerns about the lack of suitable housing for local residents in the area:
[G]etting all or some of the NTH site for housing should have been a condition for granting planning permission to the Brill Place scheme. The council decided they could not do that. Now, when it is eventually sold, they should make sure there is some housing on the site anyway. That should just be the minimum.186
120. Mr Dobson told us that he had indicated to the MRC that he “would support the [UKCMRI] scheme subject to the proviso about the release of the National Temperance Hospital site for housing”.187
182 Q 43 183 Q 113
184 As above 185 HC Deb. 20 June 2007, col 1822W 186 National Temperance Hospital - Calls for building to accommodate social housing as MRC prepare to put it on market, Camden New Journal, 13 January 2011 187 Ev w24, para 3
42 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
121. When we asked the MRC to respond to Mr Dobson’s points about the use of the former NTH site for housing, it replied that the Final Full Business Case to Government:
confirmed that the return from the sale of the [former NTH] 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.188
We note that a spokesman for the MRC said in January 2011 that it was:
now considering potential strategies for the National Temperance Hospital site, keeping all options open while in consultation with the respective government departments. At present it would not be wise to make a rapid decision about any one of these strategic options, but any decision taken in future will take into account obtaining best value for the site for the public purse.189
122. It is not for us to comment upon the exchanges between Mr Dobson and the consortium partners. The point that Mr Dobson makes about housing is, however, important. At least part of the St Pancras site was intended for housing and as we note at chapter 8 there is a risk that the UKCMRI is disconnected from its effect on the local area and local residents. Whilst we understand the requirement placed upon the MRC to seek to generate as much money as it can from the sale of its land assets in central London to offset the additional costs of construction at Brill Place, we conclude that in the exceptional circumstances of this case there is a strong case for replacing the housing intended for the St Pancras site with housing at the National Temperance Hospital site. We recommend that the National Temperance Hospital site should be sold for housing, including social housing.
MRC funding of other science projects 123. When asked whether the large sums being invested by the MRC in the UKCMRI would displace spending on other science projects, Professor Savill told us that in “terms of whether medical research would suck money out of astronomy or animal science, the answer, categorically, for the next four years, in this spending review period, is no.”190
188 Ev 52 189 National Temperance Hospital - Calls for building to accommodate social housing as MRC prepare to put it on market, Camden New Journal, 13 January 2011 190 Q 45
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 43
7 Safety and security
124. Siting the UKCMRI which will contain biological research facilities in central London was likely, in our view, to raise concerns about safety. From the outset of the inquiry we were determined to examine the risk assessment arrangements, to satisfy ourselves that the site was going to be suitably safe.
Biological hazards 125. Biological hazards, also known as biohazards, include infectious agents and hazardous biological materials that pose a threat to the health of living organisms, primarily that of humans. There are four levels of biohazard, Level 1 being minimum risk and Level 4 being extreme risk. The Medical Research Council’s (MRC) National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill currently carries out experiments up to Level 4. The UKCMRI research programme will continue the work carried out at the NIMR and at CR- UK’s London Research Institute (LRI). The infectious agents that require high levels of containment, currently studied at NIMR, include influenza, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV. The NIMR has been the home of the World Health Organization Influenza Centre (WIC) since 1948 and receives samples of flu viruses from hospitals around the world to analyse them and make recommendations on the composition of influenza vaccines, helping to understand and predict the susceptibilities of new strains of virus (such as swine flu) to medicines such as Tamiflu and Relenza.191
126. The UKCMRI consortium stated in its evidence that “all work on viruses and bacteria will be carried out at the appropriate level of containment in state-of-the-art custom- designed laboratories”.192 The following table summarises the safety conditions required for the containment facilities and work planned to be carried out at the UKCMRI.
191 Ev 41 192 As above
44 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Table 5: Containment levels and safety conditions at UKCMRI Containment Safety conditions level
2 - Restricted access laboratories with dedicated basins for hand-washing at the exit and safety cabinets may be required for some working
3 - 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
3+ - Walls as well as floor and benching should be impervious - 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 - Workers are subject to higher standards of training and more frequent assessments.
4 The UKCMRI will not work on Human Hazard Group 4 agents.
Source: UKCMRI and MRC supplementary evidence.193 127. Professor Savill, from the MRC, explained that Containment level 3+ was “not a formal classification but has been used to indicate enhanced control measures in level 3 containment facilities.”194
The risks 128. The local MP, Rt Hon Frank Dobson, considered that bio-insecurity from accidental discharges and the possibility of terrorism were the major outstanding concerns of local people.195 St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (SPA) described their fears as:
x an escape of pathogens into the atmosphere, or of infectious material via the water table into adjacent railway tunnels; and
x the laboratory attracting international terrorists or animal rights activists that cause an escape through their actions.196
129. The UKCMRI will house a small number of live animals for experimentation, mostly mice, but also fish and flies.197 Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director of the UKCMRI, told us that one third of the Centre’s animal facilities will be located at Cancer
193 Ev 41; Ev 51, para 3 194 Ev 51, para 3 195 Ev w25, para 8 196 Ev 52 197 Q 128
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 45
Research UK’s (CR-UK) Clare Hall laboratory at South Mimms, Hertfordshire.198 Experimentation on live animals brings, regrettably, a risk of disruption by extremists prepared to break the law. The SPA was concerned that a “demonstration by animal rights activists could damage the building and result in a spillage”.199
130. The UKCMRI at St Pancras would not be unique. There are a number of facilities in central London that already accommodate many secure laboratories in hospitals and university buildings. Professor Savill indicated to us that there are 781 containment level 3 facilities licensed in the UK, and John Cooper, UKCMRI’s Chief Operating Officer, explained that such laboratories were “common and essential facilities in modern medical research, and are very safe.”200 Sir Paul Nurse told us that, on level 3 biohazard containment:
there are already about a hundred facilities like that in London. There is nothing different about that. I understand that local residents are concerned, but if that was not allowed to go ahead, you would close nearly every hospital in London.201
131. Rob Inglis, SPA Press Officer, accepted that “that British scientists have an exemplary safety record. This is what I have been told by UKCMRI, but they do not have a perfect safety record.”202 Robert Henderson, a local resident, stated that:
security issues alone should prevent the research centre being built. The centre would be a prime terrorist target because there are three iconic sites in the closest proximity—the Eurostar terminal, the British Library and the UKCMRI itself and the nature of the work to be undertaken at the Centre.203
132. The outbreak of the Foot and Mouth Disease Virus from the Institute for Animal Health’s Pirbright Laboratory in 2007 highlighted the dangers involved with handling highly virulent materials. The SPA told us that a similar leak of dangerous pathogens from UKCMRI would leave a “possibility of an infection spreading through the local close, dense population, and through the railway tunnels at St Pancras International.”204 The Guardian reported in April 2008 that “over the past 10 years, the HSE has brought five separate prosecutions for severe failings in safety measures at universities, research institutes and labs attached to hospitals. Imperial College London was prosecuted twice in 1998 and fined a total of £45,000”. The article quoted Dr Ellen Nisbet, a malaria researcher at Cambridge University:
Accidents happen. It doesn’t matter if you are driving a car or working in a lab, one day something will happen, we are extremely well trained in what to do. If we were not you would probably see a lot more accidents. But if an accident does happen, it
198 Q 120 199 Ev 55, para 4c
200 Q 49; Ev 41 201 Q 126 202 Q 69 203 Ev w2, para 2 204 Ev 54, para 4a
46 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
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.205
133. In its written evidence UKCMRI Ltd said that “risk assessment and risk management is integral to the entire project,” and explained that “comprehensive risk registers are maintained and reviewed monthly by the UKCMRI Executive team and by the Construction Project Board.”206 The UKCMRI also pointed out that the planning application had contained a Security Management Plan highlighting the 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.207
134. UKCMRI Ltd explained that following “extensive consultation” the Metropolitan Police had 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” and that the “Crime Prevention Officer is satisfied that the building has taken into account the principles of designing out crime.”208 The safety of the building would be governed by “very stringent regulations” with which the UKCMRI “will fully comply”.209 The UKCMRI said that both the MRC at NIMR and CR-UK at London Research Institute (LRI) had “exemplary track records in ensuring the safety of their research for staff, visitors and the general public.”210
135. Professor Savill told us that health and safety drove the accepted UKCMRI vision of the single governance, single director and single structure.211 Sir Paul Nurse, who has overall responsibility for the UKCMRI’s health and safety, said that “the attention to security and containment in the design of the building and the thinking about it has been exemplary”.212 John Cooper explained that the UKCMRI:
have had a very thorough health and safety risk assessment of every single room in this building. Any issues that have come up have been incorporated in the design. Likewise, we have carried out a security risk assessment of all vulnerable areas of the building, and those have been incorporated in the design. We have taken great care to get this right.213
205 “Coming soon?”, The Guardian, 22 April 2008, www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/apr/22/research.highereducation 206 Ev 40, para 35
207 Ev 40, para 37 208 Ev 40, para 38
209 Ev 40, para 39 210 As above 211 Q 51 212 Q 126 213 Q 129
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 47
136. Another concern raised by a local resident was the security status of the low paid staff, such as security guards, cleaners and maintenance workers. Robert Henderson, a local Somers Town resident, was concerned that the cleaning staff:
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. [...] they go everywhere and work at night, generally with little supervision because they work when security is at its lightest.214
Sir Mark Walport, Chief Executive of the Wellcome Trust, replied that:
there are no new principles for UKCMRI than for any of the other laboratories in London, around the country and in any city. The answer is there will be proper HR procedures for all staff.215
137. Professor Savill told us that there have been a number of scare stories in the press. He said that local residents had:
been ill served by some very alarmist reporting that we will all have seen in the media concerning the potential biohazard that the research we anticipate UKCMRI doing would confer on the area.216
Conclusions 138. We appreciate the concerns of local residents and others about the safety and security of the UKCMRI and we do not doubt that there is a risk of disruption by, for example, animal rights extremists or the subversion of staff at the UKCMRI. These are not, however, unique threats faced by the UKCMRI. The four partners in the consortium, UKCMRI Ltd and the Government have indicated that they have carried out the necessary risk assessments and have risk management arrangements in place for the constructing, fitting out and operation the UKCMRI. On the basis of the evidence we have taken we conclude that these risks can be managed and the concerns about safety and security are not grounds for moving the UKCMRI to another site.
214 Ev w2 215 Q 55 216 Q 47
48 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
8 The local community
St Pancras and Somers Town community 139. The UKCMRI is to be built at Brill Place near St Pancras railway station in the Somers Town area of the London Borough of Camden. Rt Hon Frank Dobson, the local MP, described the local area in his written evidence to us:
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.217
Natalie Bennett, speaking as Chair of the St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action group (SPA), added that:
it is a very disadvantaged community, a very low-income community, where people don’t often have access to healthy food or the chance to exercise. They live in overcrowded housing. There is a lack of hope and economic opportunity. [...] Somers Town has a large, white, traditional working class community. It also has large Bangladeshi and Somali communities and lots of other minority communities. More than 30% of the people are 19 or under. 20% of them have life limiting long- term illnesses, despite the fact that only 14% of them are 60 and over. Only 66% of people describe their health as good. Nearly 10% describe themselves as permanently sick or disabled. 50% of them rent from the council and 20% from social housing landlords. Nearly 50% of them have a household income below £25,000 [...] and 33% have no qualifications. Also, many of them live in hugely overcrowded houses.218
140. We heard evidence from Frankie Biney, a local resident of 20 years, who told us how over time the community he had known was disappearing with the construction of St Pancras International station, the British Library and the Unison building, amongst others. He explained that if:
you live in St Pancras and you see all these things going up, then you wonder, “What are they doing for us and the community?” We are not getting anything out of it.219
UKCMRI engagement 141. UKCMRI began public consultation with local residents, stakeholders and other interested groups in April 2008. The first sessions, “meet and greet” road-shows, were designed to introduce local residents to the consortium and to the UKCMRI vision, and also allowed the consortium to hear the views of local people. According to the UKCMRI, feedback from these meetings helped shape the developing plans. UKCMRI told us that since April 2008 they have held more than 70 public events, where the project and its
217 Ev w25, para 5 218 Qq 64 and 72 219 Q 69
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 49
benefits were explained and people’s concerns and their priorities were listened to.220 Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), told us that:
Through the planning process we have been in discussions with the London Borough of Camden about a whole range of ways in which the institute will interact with the local community.221
142. The UKCMRI’s website highlights its engagement with local communities explaining that the development of the site, and the planning of visitor space and programmes of activities, have been carried out with input from local residents, community groups and other interested parties. The website says that the “UKCMRI is committed to being a good neighbour and has been consulting with the local community throughout its development.”222
143. In September 2010 the UKCMRI produced its Statement of Community Involvement as part of its planning application to Camden Council. The document outlined the UKCMRI’s consultation activity and objectives, its programme of activities and records some of the comments made at meetings with local residents and other stakeholders.223
144. Mr Dobson considered that “it is imperative that the UKCMRI contributes directly to relieving some of the problems of its residential neighbours” and that “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”.224 He welcomed the co-operative approach by the consortium and UKCMRI and also welcomed, in his written evidence, the main proposals to benefit local people.225 The UKCMRI agreed, as part of the planning approval process, a package of benefits with Camden Council (within a section 106 agreement)226 including: employment and training; support for schools, and science education and inspiring local students in science; improvement in open spaces, walking routes, street lighting, and community safety; support for local health improvements; contribution to the Decent Homes initiative which will benefit the local area; contribution to a local district heating scheme; and access to a community facility on-site and use for all ages.227
145. The consortium also pointed out that as a result of feedback from the local community several changes were made to the design of the building. These included: the lowering of the overall height of the building; the inclusion of a community facility provisionally called the Living Centre, to be set over two floors taking up 450m2 with an
220 UKCMRI Statement of Community Involvement, September 2010 221 Q 30
222 “Local community”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/community/local-community 223 UKCMRI Statement of Community Involvement, September 2010
224 Ev w25, para 5 225 Ev w25, para 7 226 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers a local planning authority to enter into a legally- binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. 227 “Local community”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/community/local-community
50 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
objective to create sustainable health-related projects for the benefit of local people;228 and the provision of a new east-west route between UKCMRI and the British Library.229 Laing O’Rourke, the chosen construction company, in partnership with the UKCMRI, will set up a Construction Working Group to:
ensure the opinions of local people are heard and residents are kept up-to-date on the progress of the development. Laing O’Rourke will also work with UKCMRI throughout the construction phase to create training and employment opportunities, support local businesses, liaise with surrounding communities and drive ambitious public engagement programmes.230
146. We welcome the measures which have been included to meet local needs and we consider that it is imperative that the UKCMRI contributes directly to relieving some of the problems of its residential neighbours.
Local engagement criticisms 147. Despite the evidence of local engagement, we heard several criticisms about UKCMRI’s cooperation with local residents. The community felt “powerless” and questioned the notion that they would receive any benefits.231 Ms Bennett from SPA told us that the local community had been very disappointed by the level of engagement, describing it as “very poor” and she said that the local population remained “broadly, very uninformed”. She pointed out that the community has a very diverse culture, many not with English as their first language.232
148. Ms Bennett also criticised the section 106 agreement reached between the UKCMRI and Camden Council. She told us that, although it contained some useful packages, it was “not giving the community what it really needs, which is land, space and housing”.233 The SPA indicated that there were high levels of disenfranchisement in the community. Mr Biney explained:
When you try to gather people to come down and say, “Look, we’ve got to go to a meeting and go and fight about this laboratory”, they say, “No, forget about it. It’s going to be built anyway.” From past experience, everything that we have fought for, we have never got anything. So people are just disheartened.234
149. When we put the local residents’ criticisms to UKCMRI Ltd., John Cooper, the Chief Operating Officer, told us that he was “disappointed to hear their comments because I am proud of the community consultation process that we carried out.” He continued:
228 Ev 42 229 “Local community”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/community/local-community
230 “Construction Update”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/the-project/construction 231 Qq 69 and 73 [Frankie Biney and Rob Inglis, St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action] 232 Q 73 233 As above 234 As above
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 51
I am also proud of the changes that we made as a result of that consultation. We made 11 significant changes to the design of the building, recognising points that people had made to us during the course of the consultations.235
150. We note that, according to its website, the UKCMRI plans to carry out three further consultations:
x the construction liaison group to help keep the local community informed about progress on building UKCMRI and deal with any construction issues;
x the community liaison group to consult with local residents and organisations on how the UKCMRI can work in partnership to bring benefits to Somers Town; and
x the Living Centre community working group to consult with the community on what services and facilities the Living Centre should offer to help improve people’s health and wellbeing.236
151. On the criticisms about lack of engagement with members of the community whose first language was not English, the UKCMRI sent us copies of newsletters that have been produced in English and Bengali.237
Conclusions 152. It is clear to us that the four partners in the consortium and UKCMRI Ltd have a policy of engagement with local community and, moreover, have put considerable effort into trying to engage with the local community. We welcome the offer of future consultations.
235 Q 121 236 As above; “Local community”, UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/community/local-community 237 UKCMRI Community Newsletter November 2010 (English version) at www.ukcmri.ac.uk/media/52215/ukcmri_community_newsletter_november%202010.pdf
52 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
9 The National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill
153. The approval to build the UKCMRI at St Pancras has implications for the existing institutes run by the partners in the consortium, in particular for the existing National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) at Mill Hill. In this chapter we examine the arrangements for the closure of the NIMR, the largest of the Medical Research Council’s (MRC) three research institutes.
154. The NIMR covers 47 acres at Mill Hill in north London.238 Founded in 1913, the NIMR has carried out research in a diverse range of fields, including developmental and stem cell biology, structural biology, neuroscience, immunology and infectious disease.239 With existing strong links to University College London (UCL), NIMR has almost 600 scientific staff, fellows and PhD students. The NIMR’s written evidence indicated that members at the current institute were “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 [CR-UK’s London Research Institute] and UCL.”240
155. Over the last 10 years, research at NIMR, like all biomedical research, has become increasingly interdisciplinary, collaborative, and translational.241 The four UKCMRI partners in the consortium took the view, as we have noted, that the distance of NIMR from academic and clinical partners, and its poor transport links, jeopardised its position as a world-leading research centre and that these concerns would be addressed by the establishment of the UKCMRI at St Pancras.242
The future of the NIMR 156. The MRC’s Final Full Business Case (FFBC) states that when the “UKCMRI is fully operational the intention is that the MRC’s NIMR, based at Mill Hill, will close”. The FFBC outlines that “NIMR’s main research programmes will be transferred to UKCMRI and other Higher Education Institutes or MRC units as appropriate.”243 Professor Savill, Chief Executive, MRC, said that there is “going to be a need to decommission facilities [...] Ultimately, the plan is that [the Mill Hill] site would be sold if Government permission is given for that.”244
157. The sale of the site has an important bearing on the funding for the project. The four partners in the consortium stated in their joint memorandum that they expect that returns
238 Ev 53, para 2b 239 UKCMRI website: www.ukcmri.ac.uk/news/press-releases/ukcmri-submits-plans
240 Ev w2, para 7 241 Ev w1, para 5 242 Ev w1, paras 5–6 243 Medical Research Council, UKCMRI Final Full Business Case, version 7, January 2011, Para 1.1 244 Q 59
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 53
from the sale of the site will be available to the MRC to support transitional costs (see chapter 6 on the UKCMRI’s finances).245 Professor Guy Dodson, a former NIMR employee, pointed out in his written submission that as a “working institute [the Mill Hill site] has immense value, as land however it is apparently worth only £40 million.”246 The UKCMRI explained in its written evidence that:
the MRC is taking steps to maximise the value of the property at [...] 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 2011/12.247
Arrangements for the move from Mill Hill 158. We asked the members of the consortium about the arrangements for the move from Mill Hill. Professor Savill told us that “staff will now need to be consulted as we understand how UKCMRI will go forward. Clearly, the human resources departments of both MRC and Cancer Research UK (CR-UK) will be working closely with staff” and that the “MRC anticipates that the vast majority of staff would relocate”.248
159. The National Trade Union Side (NTUS), representing all MRC employees through a joint negotiation and consultative committee, told us that 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.249
160. We put these concerns to the four partners who told us that the MRC had:
not been able to consult [with] anyone because we have not reached the point where that is appropriate. We are now moving towards that. Broadly speaking, all the stakeholders would like to understand the shape of the institute and its staff within the next 15 or so months, so we are moving now into an important consultation phase with staff. [...] MRC could not have consulted with staff because we didn’t know the project was going to go ahead.250
161. After the oral evidence session, in supplementary written evidence, jointly submitted with the retired former head of Neurophysiology at the NIMR, Professor Tim Bliss, Professor Dodson raised the issue of staff morale. They said that “NIMR on its current site offers a superb scientific and working environment that is hugely valued by its staff”, and that it was “essential for staff morale that they can have confidence in the scientific
245 Ev 50, para 23
246 Ev w19, para 2.7 247 Ev 50, para 27 248 Q 59 249 Ev w10 250 Q 60
54 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
strategies at UKCMRI and we wonder if these are known and have been discussed.”251 Isabel Vasseur also submitted written evidence. She had concerns about the current state of NIMR:
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.252
Professors Dodson and Bliss also raised concerns about the potential loss of funding and they said that “it is critical that funding for the NIMR by MRC is going to be properly preserved until the move to central London.”253
Conclusions 162. We accept that once backing was given by the Government, and planning permission was granted, for the UKCMRI to be built in central London it became inevitable that the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill would close. This must not mean, however, that the NIMR is left in limbo while all attention focuses on the UKCMRI. The NIMR is a world-class facility and it will have four to five years on the Mill Hill site, which need to be supported and managed. Funding for research at Mill Hill must remain in place throughout the transitional phase before the UKCMRI is fully operational.
163. We recommend that the Government and the MRC move quickly to begin discussions with current staff and their representatives about future work at the NIMR in Mill Hill and about the move to central London.
251 Ev w19 252 Ev w12, para 3 253 Ev w20
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 55
10 Conclusions
164. We consider that the UK requires a Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. We agree with and commend the scientific vision for the UKCMRI. This is a project of national importance with the potential to deliver significant improvements in human health. After the vision is realised the UKCMRI could provide improvements in the translation of medical research directly to the patient.
165. Our predecessor Committee’s estimation of the UKCMRI was correct: it is an exciting project which could bring significant benefits to life sciences in the UK and, indeed, to the world but it does carry a number of risks. We have examined 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 some comfort from the evidence we received during this inquiry. In particular, our concerns about costs were eased when we were told that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun.
166. However, we remain unconvinced that the location at Brill Place is the only suitable location and that the physical links described, i.e. face to face collaboration are as important or as likely as they have been described to us.
167. While we accept that the plans are now highly unlikely to change, we consider it is fair to say that the cost of construction is higher at St Pancras than any viable alternative site. The combination of high land value and the construction challenges means that the cost of building the centre, before equipping and staffing it, will be the best part of £650 million. This high cost is being justified on the basis that by placing the Centre in central London it will create better physical links with other London based institutions. Whilst we see some logic in this, we remain unconvinced that, in these financially stringent times, the high cost of building the UKCMRI in central London outweighs the benefits of these links.
168. There is clear public interest in this impressive project. We shall continue to scrutinise closely all aspects of the UKCMRI and expect to continue to receive six- monthly updates on the progress of the project from the Medical Research Council. We shall continue to monitor the promise to disperse the benefits of the UKCMRI across the UK to ensure that this undertaking is met.
56 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Conclusions and recommendations
The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation 1. We acknowledge the importance of the UKCMRI project to biomedical science in the UK. (Paragraph 17)
2. We welcome the addition of Imperial College and King’s College London as new partners to the UKCMRI project. (Paragraph 25)
The UKCMRI’s scientific vision 3. We welcome the scientific vision set out for the UKCMRI. It shows, in our view, the concept of the UKCMRI is underpinned with a comprehensive, ambitious and ground-breaking scientific vision. If this can be realised, we believe that it has an excellent chance in delivering its primary objective of benefiting mankind. (Paragraph 42)
Potential new partners 4. We welcome the addition of new partners and, to ensure the benefits of the UKCMRI flow to the whole country, we hope more partners, particularly from a wider area, will be sought. (Paragraph 43)
Benefits for the UK 5. We welcome the Department of Health’s investment in this important project and can see the positive benefits that the planned research at the UKCMRI should bring to the National Health Service. If the strategy underpinning the UKCMRI works with the dispersal of scientists and the improved translation of research throughout the UK, it will provide the NHS with a pool of talent and an extensive medical science base. (Paragraph 51)
6. We conclude that UKCMRI offers not only improvements to the NHS, but also is in step with the new models of operation emerging in the pharmaceutical sector. We agree with UKCMRI’s view that improved cooperation between the NHS, commercial ventures, the pharmaceutical industry and institutions like the UKCMRI should increase the speed at which basic research discoveries can be translated into clinical practice and enhance the effectiveness of medical research in the UK. (Paragraph 54)
Location 7. UKCMRI Ltd, the four members of the consortium and the Government have put forward for a strong case for locating the UKCMRI close to leading hospitals and academic institutions. It has to be recognised, however, that there is a premium to be paid for locating the UKCMRI in central London. The financial costs of developing the site in central London are considerably higher than for a site outside of central London. In addition, we received no satisfactory evidence on the running costs of locating the UKCMRI in a central London site in comparison to sites outside central
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 57
London. We are not convinced that St Pancras would be an obviously better location for the UKCMRI than Mill Hill for leading scientists. We question, given the higher living costs required to live in central London, whether many of the scientists working at the UKCMRI will reside in central London. In addition, the location of the UKCMRI will reinforce the concentration of life sciences in the "golden triangle" in the south-east of England. (Paragraph 71)
8. Given that planning permission has been granted, the initial construction contract has been signed and the groundbreaking ceremony is imminent, it is clear to us that there is no realistic possibility of the UKCMRI being located anywhere other than at St Pancras. In order to offset the premium which will have to be paid for locating the UKCMRI in central London and the subsequent loss of funds for research, we consider that it is essential that a detailed strategy for dispensing the benefits of the UKCMRI throughout the UK is drawn up and promulgated before the UKCMRI opens in 2015. (Paragraph 72)
Construction and management 9. From the evidence we received it is apparent that clear management arrangements for the construction phase and the operational phases of the UKCMRI have been developed and put in place. We welcome the appointment of Sir Paul Nurse as Chief Executive Officer for the next five years and note that he brings considerable experience in setting up and running similar organisations. (Paragraph 90)
10. We have set out in this chapter a number of challenges in constructing the building at St Pancras. The consortium and UKCMRI Ltd are confident that they can address these issues to complete the building on time and point to similar problems in other construction sites in central London which have been successfully addressed. Time will tell if their confidence is well placed. (Paragraph 91)
11. We have some concerns about the lack of opportunities to expand on the Brill Place site. This means that the UKCMRI will not have potential for future expansion once the building is fully occupied. While we accept Sir Paul Nurse’s view that this site is at the maximum size for a single unit, we are uneasy that the option of expansion is closed off. (Paragraph 92)
Financing the project 12. The evidence we heard indicates that the running costs of the UKCMRI could be significantly above the originally proposed £100 million per year, with roughly 50% of the baseline coming from the taxpayer via the MRC. Any additional funding above the baseline was likely to come from a variety of research grants. The MRC’s likely contribution to the baseline was going to be approximately £42 million per annum. The MRC assured us that it expected to be able to finance its contribution. This level of financing seems reasonable and we recommend that the Government gives a long-term commitment to the MRC for UKCMRI funding. (Paragraph 106)
13. We have pressed all the parties to the UKCMRI on costs. They have given what we take to be firm assurances, for which we are grateful. We received no evidence that these have been given lightly or that they are not backed with firm costings. Those
58 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
who have sought to challenge them have pointed to a history of major projects in the UK running over budget and over time. It would be neither reasonable nor sensible to conclude that because other projects have gone awry this one will as well. The Committee was relieved to hear that the taxpayer would not be liable to pay should the project overrun. The credibility of the consortium partners and the Government is on the line. (Paragraph 112)
14. We note that the funding of the UKCMRI is not dependent upon a constant stream of income generated directly from Intellectual Property rights and that any income generated from this source will be ploughed back into research funding. We consider that this strategy is a sensible basis on which to plan and will ensure that the UKCMRI has financial stability. (Paragraph 117)
15. Whilst we understand the requirement placed upon the MRC to seek to generate as much money as it can from the sale of its land assets in central London to offset the additional costs of construction at Brill Place, we conclude that in the exceptional circumstances of this case there is a strong case for replacing the housing intended for the St Pancras site with housing at the National Temperance Hospital site. We recommend that the National Temperance Hospital site should be sold for housing, including social housing. (Paragraph 122)
Safety and security 16. We appreciate the concerns of local residents and others about the safety and security of the UKCMRI and we do not doubt that there is a risk of disruption by, for example, animal rights extremists or the subversion of staff at the UKCMRI. These are not, however, unique threats faced by the UKCMRI. The four partners in the consortium, UKCMRI Ltd and the Government have indicated that they have carried out the necessary risk assessments and have risk management arrangements in place for the constructing, fitting out and operation the UKCMRI. On the basis of the evidence we have taken we conclude that these risks can be managed and the concerns about safety and security are not grounds for moving the UKCMRI to another site. (Paragraph 138)
The local community 17. We welcome the measures which have been included to meet local needs and we consider that it is imperative that the UKCMRI contributes directly to relieving some of the problems of its residential neighbours. (Paragraph 146)
18. It is clear to us that the four partners in the consortium and UKCMRI Ltd have a policy of engagement with local community and, moreover, have put considerable effort into trying to engage with the local community. We welcome the offer of future consultations. (Paragraph 152)
The National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill 19. We accept that once backing was given by the Government, and planning permission was granted, for the UKCMRI to be built in central London it became inevitable that the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill would close. This must not mean, however, that the NIMR is left in limbo while all attention
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 59
focuses on the UKCMRI. The NIMR is a world-class facility and it will have four to five years on the Mill Hill site, which need to be supported and managed. Funding for research at Mill Hill must remain in place throughout the transitional phase before the UKCMRI is fully operational. (Paragraph 162)
20. We recommend that the Government and the MRC move quickly to begin discussions with current staff and their representatives about future work at the NIMR in Mill Hill and about the move to central London. (Paragraph 163)
Overall conclusions 21. We consider that the UK requires a Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. We agree with and commend the scientific vision for the UKCMRI. This is a project of national importance with the potential to deliver significant improvements in human health. After the vision is realised the UKCMRI could provide improvements in the translation of medical research directly to the patient. (Paragraph 164)
22. Our predecessor Committee’s estimation of the UKCMRI was correct: it is an exciting project which could bring significant benefits to life sciences in the UK and, indeed, to the world but it does carry a number of risks. We have examined 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 some comfort from the evidence we received during this inquiry. In particular, our concerns about costs were eased when we were told that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. (Paragraph 165)
23. However, we remain unconvinced that the location at Brill Place is the only suitable location and that the physical links described, i.e. face to face collaboration are as important or as likely as they have been described to us. (Paragraph 166)
24. While we accept that the plans are now highly unlikely to change, we consider it is fair to say that the cost of construction is higher at St Pancras than any viable alternative site. The combination of high land value and the construction challenges means that the cost of building the centre, before equipping and staffing it, will be the best part of £650 million. This high cost is being justified on the basis that by placing the Centre in central London it will create better physical links with other London based institutions. Whilst we see some logic in this, we remain unconvinced that, in these financially stringent times, the high cost of building the UKCMRI in central London outweighs the benefits of these links. (Paragraph 167)
25. There is clear public interest in this impressive project. We shall continue to scrutinise closely all aspects of the UKCMRI and expect to continue to receive six- monthly updates on the progress of the project from the Medical Research Council. We shall continue to monitor the promise to disperse the benefits of the UKCMRI across the UK to ensure that this undertaking is met. (Paragraph 168)
60 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
Formal Minutes
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Members present:
Andrew Miller, in the Chair
Gavin Barwell Pamela Nash Stephen McPartland Graham Stringer Stephen Metcalfe Roger Williams Stephen Mosley
1. UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation
The Committee considered this matter.
Draft Report (UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 168 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Sixth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.
[Adjourned till Monday 23 May at 4.00 pm
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 61
Witnesses
Wednesday 9 February 2011 Page
Professor Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, University College London, Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive, Cancer Research UK, Professor Sir John Savill, Chief Executive, Medical Research Council, and Sir Mark Walport, Chief Executive, Wellcome Trust Ev 1
Natalie Bennett, Chair, Rob Inglis, Press Officer, and Frankie Biney, local resident, St. Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action Ev 10
Wednesday 16 February 2011
Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director, UKCMRI Limited, Sir David Cooksey, Chairman, UKCMRI Limited, and John Cooper, Chief Operating Officer, UKCMRI Limited Ev 17
Wednesday 2 March 2011
Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, and The Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health Ev 29
62 UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI)
List of printed written evidence
1 Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (UKCMRI 00) Ev 35 2 UKCMRI Limited (UKCMRI 04, 04a, 04b and 04c) Ev 36, Ev 41, Ev 42, Ev 43 3 Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, University College London, and the Wellcome Trust (UKCMRI 09, 09a and 09b) Ev 46, Ev 51, Ev 52 4 St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (UKCMRI 11 and 11a) Ev 52, Ev 57 5 Frankie Biney (UKCMRI 22) Ev 58
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/science)
1 Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine (UKCMRI 01) Ev w1 2 The Academy of Medical Sciences (UKCMRI 02) Ev w1 3 Director, Medical Research Council National Institute for Medical Research (UKCMRI 03) Ev w1 4 Robert Henderson (UKCMRI 05 and 05a) Ev w2, Ev w9 5 Medical Research Council’s National Trade Union Side (UKCMRI 06) Ev w10 6 Mireille Burton (UKCMRI 07) Ev w10 7 Professor Sir Richard Trainor, Principal, King’s College London (UKCMRI 08) Ev w11 8 Isabel Vasseur (UKCMRI 10) Ev w11 9 Imperial College London (UKCMRI 12) Ev w12 10 The Public & Commercial Services Union (UKCMRI 13) Ev w15 11 Action for our Planet (UKCMRI 014) Ev w16 12 GlaxoSmithKline R&D (UKCMRI 15) Ev w17 13 Professor Guy Dodson (UKCMRI 16 and 16b) Ev w17, Ev w20 14 Professor Guy Dodson and Dr Tim Bliss (UKCMRI 16a) Ev w19 15 Camden Green Party (UKCMRI 17) Ev w21 16 Councillor Roger Robinson, St Pancras and Somers Town Ward (UKCMRI 18) Ev w22 17 John Mason (UKCMRI 20) Ev w23 18 T Morgan (UKCMRI 21) Ev w24 19 Rt. Hon. Frank Dobson MP (UKCMRI 23) Ev w24
UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) 63
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.
Session 2010–12 First Special Report The Legacy Report: Government Response to the HC 370 Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2009–10 First Report The Reviews into the University of East Anglia’s HC 444 (HC 496) Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails Second Report Technology and Innovation Centres HC 618 (HC 1041) Third Report Scientific advice and evidence in emergencies HC 498 (HC 1042) Second Special Report The Reviews into the University of East Anglia’s HC 496 Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2010–12 Fourth Report Astronomy and Particle Physics HC 806 Fifth Report Strategically important metals HC 726 Third Special Report Technology and Innovation Centres: Government HC 1041 Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2010–12 Fourth Special Report Scientific advice and evidence in emergencies: HC 1042 Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2010–12
Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Science and Techology Committee on Wednesday 9 February 2011
Members present: Andrew Miller (Chair)
Gavin Barwell Pamela Nash Stephen Metcalfe Graham Stringer David Morris Roger Williams Stephen Mosley ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Professor Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, University College London, Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive, Cancer Research UK, Professor Sir John Savill, Chief Executive, Medical Research Council, and Sir Mark Walport, Chief Executive, Wellcome Trust, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Welcome everyone. As you know, we be carried out in the institute once the new building gave a commitment when we were first formed as a is completed. new Committee of the House that we would undertake For Cancer Research UK, this represents the a short inquiry into UKCMRI. This is the first formal opportunity to build on what has been for us a session of that inquiry. May I welcome everyone this tremendously successful research institute that has morning and ask the four witnesses to kindly been for almost 50 years now in the centre of London, introduce themselves for the record? in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, our London research institute, Professor Grant: I am Malcolm Grant. I am President which has carried out some of the most fundamental and Provost of University College London. work into the understanding of cancer, how it occurs, Harpal Kumar: I am Harpal Kumar. I am Chief how it spreads and the factors that drive that. For us Executive of Cancer Research UK. this is about the continuation of that work, but much Professor Savill: I am John Savill, Chief Executive, more so it is about making sure that we have access Medical Research Council. to resources and the creative energy that will enable Sir Mark Walport: I am Mark Walport, Director of us to accelerate that progress through the sorts of the Wellcome Trust. interactions that will be possible through this new institute. Q2 Chair: Thank you very much. May I ask the four of you how much you are each investing in the project Q3 Chair: Are you in discussions with any of your and what do each of you expect to get back? Secondly, sister organisations—the other cancer charities? are there any plans to open the consortium to other Harpal Kumar: Constantly. We work in partnership interested organisations? with many other organisations, although not Professor Grant: UCL has been involved in the specifically in regard to this project. project since 2004. Our investment in it will be in the region of £45 million, although that may well abate if Q4 Chair: I know you talk to them about other other academic partners join us. things, but specifically, in terms of this project, are What do we expect to get out of it? It is the most there any plans to engage with any of them in the exciting science project in Britain today. We are a consortium? university uniquely co-located with it. Our Harpal Kumar: Not at this stage. contribution to it will be through investment in further Professor Savill: The Medical Research Council has biomedical research but also, unusually and perhaps invested an awful lot of time, energy and enthusiasm uniquely, as a university that also has great strengths in this project. Obviously, the MRC is a non- in engineering and physical sciences, there is an departmental body allied to the Department for ability to have a horizontal relationship that introduces Business, Innovation and Skills, so it is spending a capacity for the institute to work at the interstices of public money. Therefore, it has to invest very wisely. these different disciplines. That also, of course, has a It is also under scrutiny from Government and from cross-fertilisation for the strength of science at UCL. an independent council with an independent chair. We Harpal Kumar: Cancer Research UK will be have earmarked £300 million of capital investment investing in cash terms £160 million into the capital into the project, but, obviously, we see a very bright, of the project, plus the provision of some facilities at long-term future for our science, funded at around £42 our Clare Hall site for some of those activities that million per year recurrent that is currently at the can be carried out off site. In total, that comes to about National Institute for Medical Research. It has £180 million of investment. We will, of course, also tremendous strengths in infection, immunology, be funding on an ongoing basis much of the research, structural biology, neuroscience and developmental or a considerable amount of the research, that will and stem cell biology. Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 2 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport
The most exciting thing about this for the MRC is the Q9 Stephen Metcalfe: Good morning, gentlemen. prospect of added value through interdisciplinarity, Could you run me through the overall funding? You joining with other like-minded groups of scientists in have said how much you are putting into the project. creating what will be the biggest and most exciting Can you tell me what the headline figures are in terms development in the UK. The MRC’s involvement of capital expenditure and then ongoing annual really does signal that this is a development for the expenditure? UK and not just a corner of London. We are very keen Harpal Kumar: The overall project cost is estimated to see interactions right across the UK. Indeed, I have at about £650 million. We have each told you what close affiliations with the university of Edinburgh. A our individual contributions are to that. If you add university that far away has been consulted and is very those up, those will add up to £650 million. Of that keen to be part of the vision. £650 million, about £85 million was the land purchase. The bulk of the rest, obviously, is associated Q5 Chair: We will be coming on to some of those with the construction, all of the associated issues later on. Sir Mark? professional fees and a reasonable level of Sir Mark Walport: The first thing to say is that this is contingency given the complexity and nature of the a very strong partnership. All of our organisations project. have been involved from the inception. The Wellcome Trust is contributing £120 million in capital, and we Q10 Stephen Metcalfe: What do you get for your expect to contribute to the revenue costs of the science that goes on in UKCMRI. The vision of the Wellcome £650 million? Trust is to achieve extraordinary improvements in Sir Mark Walport: A flagship institute. human and animal health, which we do by funding the brightest minds. For us, the vision was obvious from Q11 Stephen Metcalfe: What does a flagship the beginning, which is that this will be a global institute look like? From my reading of the report, this facility that will attract the brightest minds, that will is about people and brains. I want to know what you train them and enable us to achieve our mission and are getting for your £650 million. our vision. Sir Mark Walport: It is an environment in which those brains are going to be able to pursue state-of- Q6 Chair: At what stage are the discussions with the-art research for the 21st century. First of all, it is Imperial and King’s College, and what do they offer going to be an environment that encourages to the project? interactions internally and externally, so its location Sir Mark Walport: The discussions with Imperial and near to great teaching hospitals is extremely King’s are ongoing. We hope that we will reach a important. It will have the state-of-the-art facilities position where they are able to join as partners. They that scientists need, such as confocal microscopes, are proceeding well. imaging equipment, all of the essential equipment, much of which is now individually very expensive. Q7 Chair: Now that the London Borough of Camden has, essentially, granted planning permission, are there Q12 Stephen Metcalfe: The equipment that you are any further planning obstacles to be encountered? talking about is included in the £650 million? Harpal Kumar: Essentially, no. We are in the final Sir Mark Walport: There will be additional equipment stages of completing the various agreements that go costs over time. You don’t equip an institute just like with that planning approval, but there appear to be no that from scratch. significant obstacles—indeed no particular obstacles at all. We are expecting to move forward relatively Q13 Stephen Metcalfe: For clarity, how much of the shortly. £650 million is for bricks and mortar as opposed to Professor Savill: I would not refer to the Government agreeing the MRC’s business case as an obstacle. equipment? Throughout the Government have been very Professor Savill: If I can clarify that, the £650 million supportive of the MRC. I have just heard that the is essentially to deliver the building and some of the MRC’s final full business case has been approved by fittings. There is a separate tranche of funding that the Government. I don’t know the details as we sit will be needed for equipment and other transitional here, but, again, that is a very significant development costs. Again, the MRC’s contribution to that will be and good news for the project. some £65 million in addition to this. These are good questions, but I’d like to say that all four of us travel Q8 Chair: Thank you for that. Finally, before I hand internationally and we see the scale of investment that over to colleagues, how important is the support of our competitors are making internationally. While the pharmaceutical sector in this project? these sums are eye-wateringly large, they are Sir Mark Walport: The issue is one of partnership. If commensurate with the kind of investments we are we are to translate the products of discovery into seeing in Singapore, the USA, Germany or China. We benefits for humans in terms of new preventive believe that this is an appropriate scale of investment. strategies and new treatments, then partnership with I hope you would agree with that. the pharmaceutical industry is a key element in that. Harpal Kumar: I would like to add two comments. The pharmaceutical industry is supportive. I know that First of all, on the equipment point, one of the ways you have received a submission, for example, from that we tend to describe buildings like this is that, if GSK. you turn them upside down, everything that doesn’t Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 3
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport move—in other words, everything that is fixed in institute here. We have looked very carefully at this terms of equipment—is included within the cost of site and conclude that it is in the right place. the provision, so within the £650 million. All fixed You mentioned Sandwich. One of the reasons why equipment would be included within that figure. that might have been less attractive for Pfizer is Anything that is moveable tends not to be. precisely the issue that we face were this institute not In answer to your other question, this will deliver a to be close to major universities and hospitals. project of a scale that will be certainly one of the Sandwich is distant from University College and other largest, if not the largest, institutes in Europe. That is London colleges. It is distant from the major teaching important because it gives us the opportunity to create hospitals. The MRC is absolutely clear that we have or facilitate some of the interactions that hitherto have given this matter very close scrutiny. Don’t forget that not been possible, whether between biologists and this project has received scrutiny and approval from other scientists, whether between people working on the previous Government. It has received scrutiny cancer and other diseases, whether in terms of the during the Comprehensive Spending Review when access to the technologies that we are going to be able very hard decisions were taken by the Government to provide in this institute that, individually, is much about where capital investment should be made. It more difficult for us to do because of the cost of continues to be scrutinised through events such as this. doing so. These are important questions but we have been thinking about them at the MRC for nearly nine Q14 Stephen Metcalfe: I might come back to that in years now. a minute. What will be the ongoing cost per annum Sir Mark Walport: You need to look internationally of running the institute? as well. Science thrives best in a clustered Sir Mark Walport: We are estimating about £100 environment where there is actually a critical mass of million as the baseline, but it is likely to be much scientists from different disciplines and hospitals. larger than that. This is an institute where the Look at Boston, where there is an enormous cluster scientists will write grants. They will have the which has developed around Harvard and MIT. capacity to raise research funds from the whole UKCMRI is positioned at the absolute heart of the diversity of UK funders, the European research cluster in the south-east, so there are the London councils and the national institutes of health. It is colleges, Stevenage, Cambridge and the Sanger impossible precisely to define that now, but we are Institute just up the road, with Oxford not far to the talking about a baseline of, probably, around £100 west. It is absolutely in the right place. It is at the million. heart of what will be the south-east cluster. Professor Grant: I would add another issue in relation Q15 Stephen Metcalfe: I think the project as an to the funding, which is that this, uniquely, is levering institute is very valuable, but I do have great concerns about £300 million of charitable contribution to put about the amount that is being spent on building a site alongside the Treasury investment. It is a consequence in the middle of London. I cannot quite grasp why for highly successful science in Britain that has that is so important. I understand that when this brought together a partnership of like-minded project was first identified in 2007 the world was a investors. This is not wholly a taxpayer-borne cost. different environment. We now live in a much more challenging economic state. Have you looked at Q16 Stephen Metcalfe: I appreciate that, but it is alternatives to spending this money, because it strikes still money being spent on a facility rather than on me that that capital investment could be much better research. You said, Sir John, that you wanted this to spent on putting people outside London and on be a development for the whole UK. You don’t think equipment and research rather than on a very grand that we should look again at that. You are absolutely project, which might have been great three years ago convinced that this has to be a very expensive building but perhaps does not quite tick the boxes now? There in the middle of London—I can understand the are sites that have become available recently. For arguments for getting the scientists together and the example, there is the Pfizer site in Sandwich. Have connections—but it is the sheer expense that you looked at alternatives outside London? Have you concerns me. looked again at the Mill Hill site? If that is the absolutely correct solution to the Professor Savill: Can I answer that because, in one problem, how robust are your finances now in the way or another, I have been involved in this thinking light of the fact that land values and things like that since 2002, when the MRC first decided to review its have changed, and in terms of getting this project fully major investment sites? Very careful thought was funded, and who carries the can when, perhaps, it given to where the best place to have a major overruns or the money doesn’t add up? interdisciplinary institute would be. We took Sir Mark Walport: It is not going to overrun. We have international advice. We consulted widely. There is done the estimates very carefully. We are starting the unanimity on central London being an attractive site contracting process. We are confident that this will be because of its international connections and its delivered on time and in budget. attraction to international scientists. If you look at the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration Q17 David Morris: Who has the final say on analysis of health research spend in 2006, it shows decisions within the consortium? Who controls, for that 33% of the UK’s health research money was spent example, the finances, staff matters and the scientific in London. I think it makes sense to have a high scale vision? Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 4 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport
Professor Savill: In setting up this institute, there was in May of this year. Very broadly, we are expecting a a long discussion about how it could be governed. two-year construction period and then a two-year Again, after careful thought, we arrived at the right fitting out and commissioning period, which gets you conclusion as a set of four stakeholders, and that is a the four years. In fact, we are expecting that the single form of governance with a single director. That building will be handed over some time in the first director reports to the board of UKCMRI, which is half of 2015. The occupation will start some time now in existence and is chaired by Sir David Cooksey. thereafter, obviously. That gives you a broad sense of Ultimately, the board of the UKCMRI, which is now the timelines. Obviously, it is difficult to be much recognised as a charity, commands the institute and more specific than that at this stage. As you will also our four organisations are stakeholders in that new be aware, there has been a tender process under way charity. for the main contractor for this project. All of the discussions with the tenderers have suggested that Q18 David Morris: If it is going to be a charitable these timelines are eminently achievable and present company limited by shares, how are the shares going no concerns to those potential contractors at this stage. to be divided between the four partners? Is it going to As Mark touched on earlier, all of us, as organisations, be 25%? How would other partners come into it and have been involved in complex laboratory projects, how would the shares be divided up accordingly? and we have experience of ensuring that they get Professor Savill: Again, it is set out in great detail in delivered on time and in budget, so we are pretty the joint venture agreement which Government confident that this one will be also. scrutinised and allowed the four of us to sign back in the autumn. Again, if you need further written Q24 Gavin Barwell: I want to pick up on a couple information, we can provide that, but it is in the JVA. of points. When is the tender expected to be awarded for the main contractor? Q19 David Morris: Who appointed the professional Harpal Kumar: We are waiting for the MRC business team to manage the consortium in the first place? case approval. Once that is done, then we are in the Sir Mark Walport: We came together as a partnership. final stages of discussions for the appointment of the We have appointed an executive team. We have main contractor. So the answer is, soon. We would created a charitable structure that is now in existence. hope to have in place the first agreement by around The board exists. There are very clear lines of March. governance with a very strong executive team who you will be seeing in a week or so. Q25 Gavin Barwell: The briefing that we received said that the full transition would not be complete Q20 David Morris: Has the final business case been until 2017 or 2018. Can you give a little bit more submitted to the MRC or BIS yet? When do you detail about what happens—you claim to be slightly expect to hear the outcome of the BIS consideration? earlier than that—from the point when, by the second Professor Savill: The MRC submitted its final full quarter of 2015, you are expecting to get the business case to BIS in early January. This has been handover? scrutinised by Ministers and, as I mentioned earlier, I Harpal Kumar: Yes. It will simply take some time in have just heard that the Government have approved it, logistical terms to transfer something of the order of although I have not yet seen that in writing because I 1,200 to 1,500 scientists and associated staff into a have been preparing for this discussion. building of this nature, plus all of the equipment. 2017 is a guesstimate at this stage. It is not something that Q21 Chair: You are not aware of any qualifications just happens overnight, obviously. That is taking into on that approval? account the full-scale completion of all the transition Professor Savill: I am not aware, but I anticipate that, arrangements that have to go into creating this new inevitably, there will be some clarifications and institute with all of the associated issues, particularly qualifications because of the sums of money involved. for the MRC and Cancer Research UK, for our existing employees and the related transitions with Q22 Chair: I would be grateful if you could notify them. us of that when it becomes available to you. Professor Savill: I will liaise with BIS. I am sure that Q26 Gavin Barwell: Can you just give me a little can be done. more detail on that by way of background? Before I was elected to the House, I was a councillor in my Q23 Gavin Barwell: I want to ask you questions home town. I am familiar with the project they have about the planning and construction of the centre. As there where they are moving the council HQ and a I understand it, your intention is for the building to be similar number of employees who are transferring handed over in the third quarter of 2015. In one of from a number of locations to the new location, the submissions that we have received, that has been obviously not necessarily with all the complex described to us as a “tight timeline”. How confident technical equipment that would be involved in this are you of delivering that and could you give me some case. Two to three years is quite a long period from milestones along the way by which one could measure handover to the full transition. Would you give me a progress towards that deadline? bit more detail about what is involved in that process? Harpal Kumar: Assuming that what John has said Sir Mark Walport: I am afraid that you have to look about the MRC business case approval is confirmed, at track records. The largest partnership that we have then our expectation is that there will be a start on site been involved with, which was a partnership between Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 5
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport the Wellcome Trust and the Government, was the Q30 Gavin Barwell: I have one final question, building of the Diamond Synchrotron at Harwell, the which, rather than about the building itself and the largest facility built in the UK for very many years, planning of the building, is about its contribution to which was delivered on time, in budget and occupied the wider community of which it is going to be part. effectively. We will manage the occupation of The vision document talks about its contribution to UKCMRI effectively. It is very difficult to give you the regeneration of the King’s Cross area and the precise timescales of a building that will be opening potential for holding community events there as well in 2015. We will manage it efficiently and effectively. as research. Can you tell us a little bit more about how It is more complicated than an administrative the building will be integrated into the local building. There is scientific equipment, there will be community? some commissioning of instruments and it will take a Harpal Kumar: Through the planning process we bit of time. We will do it efficiently. have been in discussions with the London Borough of Harpal Kumar: It is in everyone’s interest for that Camden about a whole range of ways in which the process to be as rapid as it possibly can be, so that institute will interact with the local community. We will be the intention. have now agreed a range of provisions through that process that go all the way through, from the Q27 Gavin Barwell: In terms of the complexities of establishment of what has been called the Living the site and the construction work involved, am I right Centre within the building itself, which will be in thinking that the lowest floor of the building is available to the local community and largely driven actually below the water table level, and there are by the local community in terms of precisely what complexities also in terms of proximity to the provision will be in that space, to a very active Northern Line? Can you say a little bit more about the programme of engagement with local schools, both risk management on those issues? in terms of scientists going out to schools as well as Sir Mark Walport: All the way through the planning providing public space within the institute to engage process we have considered all of those contingencies. people with the science that is going on within it. I In terms of buildings near tube lines, that issue has won’t go on at length but we have had a range of been raised. For example, at University College, just discussions about how this institute will interact with off the Euston Road, there is a combined nanoscience the local community, provision to improving local centre where vibrations are absolutely critical. It is housing, local energy schemes and so on. There is a within yards of the tube line. Modern technology range of aspects of this. enables that to be handled without difficulty. This has Professor Grant: I would add that there has been a all been thought of. lot of interaction regarding the design of the building. Professor Savill: If I could reinforce that point, you The original design of the building had an air of will note that in the submission that the NIMR impermeability about it. The design has been worked director made that 42 members of NIMR staff have up, and I have to pay tribute to our relationship with been involved in the scientific planning. I have had the Camden planners in trying to put here a building the opportunity to speak to the director of research which, despite its bulk and mass, none the less has a who leads on nuclear magnetic resonance analysis permeability and an openness that previously it did where vibration is a potential issue, and I have been not have in its first iterations. personally reassured that the expert scientists are completely happy with the provisions. Again, as Mark Q31 Graham Stringer: Sir Mark, Committees of said, there is a very useful example. this House have heard people in charge of projects from the Jubilee Line, Wembley Stadium to the Q28 Chair: It can be addressed. We accept that. We Olympic Games—one can go on and on—say that have seen plenty of examples of that ourselves in this those projects were going to come in on time and on Committee. We have recently been to CERN as an budget. None of them did. Why should we accept example. However, Sir Mark, you drew your what you are saying? I understand the issues you comparison with the building of the Diamond talked about of engineering and science, but you are Synchrotron. Let’s face it. The geological not totally in control of the London building market, environment is much more simple where the are you? Synchrotron was built than in London. How can you Sir Mark Walport: We have built contingencies into be so certain that that analogy is a fair one? it. I am afraid you have to look at track record. There Sir Mark Walport: Because we have done it before. is no use saying that, because a series of projects haven’t come in on time, therefore all projects will Q29 Chair: No, you haven’t done it before, or not not come in on time. on that scale. Sir Mark Walport: The answer is that there were Q32 Graham Stringer: No, I am not saying that. I special measures that had to be taken for the Diamond am not arguing about it. Synchrotron. For example, the concrete there had to Sir Mark Walport: If you look at our track record, be impregnated with barytes. This was a facility where the Diamond Synchrotron did come in on time and in the electron beam had to be managed within microns. budget, the headquarters building of the Wellcome The answer is that this is hi-tech engineering and it Trust on Euston Road, which is a very large building, can be done. It can be done in London, it can be done came in on time and in budget, and the extension to at Harwell, and we have done it on the Euston Road the Sanger Institute which we built, which is a major at the nanosciences centre. scientific institute outside Cambridge, came in on time Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 6 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport and in budget. The answer is that we intend to bring Free is nearby, the Eastman Dental hospital, the Royal it in on time and in budget. Can I guarantee that events National Throat, Nose and Ear hospital and, of course, outside our control won’t conspire against us? No; no UCL itself and our other colleges in London. So one can guarantee that. I can’t predict the future. It is trying to get a combination of co-location and much easier to predict the past. It is in all our interests suitability of site meant that this was the best game of to deliver this project. We have paid great attention to the lot. governance. We have a very strong executive team to whom you will have the opportunity to speak. We will Q37 Graham Stringer: Can this site expand? do our level best to do it on time and in budget. I Professor Grant: No. There is very limited scope for can’t say more than that. expansion on the site. However, as the institute grows and succeeds, we would envisage some satellite Q33 Graham Stringer: What is the size of the operations, UKCMRI branded, but potentially at contingency? UCL, Imperial, King’s or with other partners. There Sir Mark Walport: I would need to write to you with is an ability to ensure that the science which grows the precise figure. within the building itself is also continued and supplemented elsewhere. Q34 Graham Stringer: You don’t even know it as a percentage of the project, when you are being so Q38 Graham Stringer: How will space be allocated precise about it coming in on budget. within the building? Sir Mark Walport: It is 15%. Professor Grant: A critical decision was made at the outset that this was not simply to be a co-location of Q35 Graham Stringer: 15%. That is helpful. If different laboratories. The decision was taken that this something goes wrong, as you have acknowledged would be one institute and that it would be under the that something could go wrong, whose head is on guidance of a single director whose responsibility it the line? would be to set the scientific priorities, to recruit the Sir Mark Walport: It has a very clear executive teams and to allocate the space. structure. Governance is absolutely clear. It has a We, as an investor in this institute, do not command board, an executive and proper mechanisms for any specified floor area. It is critical to understand accountability. One of the attractions of this that. This is not an acquisition of floor space. This is partnership to the Government was the strong track a right for us to support research in the institute for record of public-private partnerships of this sort up to 100 seconded staff from UCL. We are happy to delivering in the science arena. put those staff under the direction of the director of the institute. Q36 Graham Stringer: We have heard that this is an appropriate site because of its connections to teaching Q39 Graham Stringer: The implication of that is hospitals and some of this country’s great universities. that there won’t be a bidding process from the I understand that. But what were the arguments for a different organisations for space. It will be centrally relatively small site of 3.6 acres? Isn’t that a directed. difficulty? Can you run us through the arguments for Professor Grant: Indeed. and against using a site that is relatively small? Harpal Kumar: Absolutely. So the director of the Professor Grant: Shall I start? The original proposal institute, the first of which will be Sir Paul Nurse, will was for the group at NIMR at Mill Hill to join us at establish the scientific strategy. The scientific UCL. The site that had been chosen for that was the programme will determine who needs to be given National Temperance Hospital site in Hampstead space in the building in order to accommodate that Road, which was significantly smaller; indeed it was scientific programme and will allocate space and other under one acre. As we worked through our proposals resources accordingly, entirely driven by that in the years 2004 and 2005, it became increasingly programme and strategy, which, of course, will be clear that on that site we would not be able to absorb signed off by the board of UKCMRI but entirely the activity from Mill Hill, let alone future expansion. driven by what Sir Paul Nurse determines is the right By 2007, it had become clear that the site that we had programme of research. long looked at, which was the land at the rear of the British Library, would be coming on the market. Q40 Graham Stringer: It was mentioned earlier in Previously, we had had to strike it off our list of questions from the Chairman that you envisage options because it was not available. When it came on linking up, potentially, with universities and research the market, it opened up for us an opportunity not institutions outside of London. Can you expand on merely to re-locate Mill Hill but also to bring in with that a little? it the CRUK laboratories from Lincoln’s Inn. With Professor Savill: Yes. Perhaps I could address that financial assistance from Wellcome and with because prior to taking up the MRC role I had been engagement from ourselves, we managed to piece this the head of the medical school in Edinburgh for nearly together. 3.5 acres in the middle of London is not an 10 years. The science planning committee that was easy site to find or to piece together. chaired by Sir Paul Nurse before his appointment as Secondly, the co-location is absolutely vital. The CEO was scrupulous in engaging all the medical major teaching hospitals with which we are co- schools and universities in the UK in discussions located, within a quarter of an hour’s walk, are UCL about how we could interact with a major facility such hospital, Great Ormond Street, Moorfields, the Royal as this. Obviously, Edinburgh is 350 miles away. Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 7
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport
If I can just go back to your insightful questions about number of times to develop this vision that you have space, restricted space actually confers a discipline on now seen. the institute. One of the objectives of the institute is to seed talent right across the UK. This is not a place Q42 Stephen Mosley: You mentioned the two major where people are going to spend their whole career, funders: Cancer Research and Wellcome. In our pack by and large. What they are going to do is spend an we have some very good quotes from Cancer early part of their career at the institute and then, I Research saying that the UKCMRI will “significantly very much hope, seed biomedical research right across accelerate progress in the fight against cancer.” From the UK. In Edinburgh, for example, we have a very the Wellcome Trust we hear that you think it will strong programme, co-funded by the Wellcome Trust, generate “breakthroughs in knowledge and in training young clinical academics to PhD level, but innovations that will enable major advances in we tend to want to send them away for their post- health.” We also have comments from doctoral training. Frequently they go to the USA or GlaxoSmithKline that talk about “improved patient Europe at the moment. The availability of UKCMRI and economic benefit for the UK.” How do you think as a place for these young folk to go for a few years the UKCMRI will drive forward the translation of is very attractive. I imagine if we were sitting in this research into the wider benefits? room in 15 years’ time that we would be able to trace Sir Mark Walport: If I could just add a qualification a whole load of living links right across the UK from to what you said, there are three major funders, of the institute to the major research-intensive course. There is the Medical Research Council as universities and medical schools. The space does well. These are the three largest research funders in determine that discipline and it will drive these very the UK. We absolutely share the vision. It is about desirable living links because people will leave. understanding human biology in both health and disease. The answer is that when discoveries are made Q41 Stephen Mosley: Earlier you very briefly that have the possibility of application, and an obvious mentioned the scientific vision. I know that Sir John example would be the MRC invention of the in the last question mentioned the scientific planning technology that led to monoclonal antibodies, which committee. Could you briefly explain how your has translated into many therapies that have generated scientific vision was formulated? billions of pounds in revenue and treated many Professor Savill: From my perspective, this has been diseases. There are many opportunities arising, for done by a collegial process involving scientists example, from the Cancer Genome Project at the directly likely to move and other expert scientists moment to develop new therapies for cancer. under a then independent chair. It is relatively early As I said earlier, predicting the future is always a days in the scientific strategy because, obviously, to difficult thing to do, but it is the nature of the science secure the funding the proposals are going to need to that comes out of institutes such as UKCMRI. The be seen in more detail. For example, at the moment, philosophy will be, wherever possible, to recognise the MRC is only just scrutinising the existing NIMR where there is a potential for application and to do programme of research, which we have to do every that. That will involve collaboration outside the five years. The bones of the strategy exist. You will institute, in the hospitals around the country and with have seen them in the submission and the flesh will industry, because it is a complex ecosystem in terms come as we move towards establishment and of translating something from a basic laboratory occupation. Clearly, from the point of view of two discovery into a health benefit. It is an explicit part of major funders, we will have to scrutinise proposals the mission of UKCMRI. very carefully to make sure that we are going to get the best value for money. It is a little early to be Q43 Stephen Mosley: You mentioned the possibility expecting precise details. of billions in revenues from some of the treatments Harpal Kumar: Perhaps I could add a couple of that have been developed. How will the intellectual words to that. From very early on in the genesis of property be managed within the UKCMRI? this project the four partners decided that we wanted Sir Mark Walport: The intellectual property will be some strong scientific advice from around the world held by the institute itself. We expect that it will be on the vision for this institute and so we formed what managed effectively for the benefit of humans. was called the science planning committee. We asked Sir Paul Nurse to chair it. As I am sure you will be Q44 Stephen Mosley: Within your submissions and aware, Sir Paul is currently or just finishing as also today you have made much about this weird President of the Rockerfeller university in New York. cluster of people whom you will be bringing together At that point he had not been thought of as the first in generating a critical mass of research and staff. Is director and he had not been appointed as President there any documented evidence that clustering of the Royal Society. So he was an appropriate choice scientists together does facilitate better research? You as a Nobel Laureate to lead this thinking. He enlisted talk about the cluster, but then you do talk about the a team of scientists from across the world to advise wheel and the spoke model that you want to develop on this project. That included scientists from NIMR in future. There does seem to be a bit of a and the London Research Institute as well as from contradiction in those ideas. Wellcome and UCL, but it also included people from Sir Mark Walport: The best evidence is if you look the US and other countries around the world. They at the major research discoveries and see where they then sought other advice through less formal have come from. If you look at the strengths of the interactions but they came together as a group a Bay area around San Francisco, around Cambridge Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 8 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport and the universities of London, that is where moment with the intent to deliver two proton therapy discoveries originate. They tend not to come from centres in the UK. Those have already been allocated, isolated environments. one to UCL and one to The Christie, with a possible Professor Savill: Researchers are often criticised in third at Birmingham. That very directly answers the the lay media for discovering what everyone knew proton therapy question. But if I can broaden that was obvious in the first place, but there is a peer- question out a little bit, radiation therapy is continuing reviewed paper which says that colloration is the best to go through a very considerable amount of form of driving collaboration and added value. Again, development in terms of the more targeted nature of we can submit that to the Committee, which might it for cancer patients. There is a huge amount of work help you. So there is published evidence on that. going on right across the UK, which is in large part funded by Cancer Research UK, but the Department Q45 Stephen Mosley: Sir John, wearing your of Health funds a considerable amount of work in that research council hat, is there a fear or a danger that area as well. The new technologies are absolutely other sciences, whether it is zoology, ecology, being both developed and adopted across the UK. astronomy, oceanography—those kind of things— There is great promise for further development of might suffer or might lose funding because of the radiation therapy and there are a number of potential large amount of funding that the MRC is putting into new developments in looking at new particles for this project? delivering radiation in different forms to different Professor Savill: Yes. That is a good question. I can tumour types. All of that work is currently being reassure you that that is not the Government’s plan. assessed and planned for. None of it is precluded by They recently published a detailed booklet with the what we are doing here at UKCMRI. Indeed, it is allocations to the research councils. You will have seen that they managed to maintain flat cash in all the going on in parallel. other six research councils. MRC did a little better Sir Mark Walport: Indeed, the work in UKCMRI with flat real, in part because of the need to co-align ought to facilitate this because actually physics is a with charities and with the Department of Health. Of major contributor to the understanding of biological course, the capital component actually came from the science. Discoveries made in UKCMRI will have to Department of Health, which was an unforeseen but translate into new therapies. very welcome piece of cross-departmental support from Government. In terms of whether medical Q47 Roger Williams: Neighbours of the proposed research would suck money out of astronomy or development have been very concerned about animal science, the answer, categorically, for the next biosecurity and other safety issues. How have you four years, in this spending review period, is no. been able to assure them that the facility will be safe If I can go further, your question also would test the and secure? degree to which within the MRC there might be over- Professor Savill: If I can explain, I have been in post concentration of funding into UKCMRI. In terms of as chief executive only since October. I, personally, the headroom that we have to commit, we heard have not had the chance to talk to local folk. earlier from Mark that the notional running figure is Obviously, considerable efforts have been made by the about £100 million a year. If you add the two notional consortium to initiate those discussions. People in the elements from the two main funders together, that is area have been ill served by some very alarmist over £80 million. So we are looking for another £16 reporting that we will all have seen in the media million to £18 million. The MRC can make new concerning the potential biohazard that the research commitments of nearly £400 million each year. Going we anticipate UKCMRI doing would confer on the back to Mr Stringer’s question, the space confers a area. discipline. It will stop money being sucked into this The first thing to emphasise is that, if there were some thing because it is only so big. We have given a great problem with the escape of hazardous organisms, the deal of thought to that in the MRC. first people to be exposed would be our scientists. We are responsible for them and, therefore, we are Q46 Chair: Can I push you a little further on that absolutely determined to do everything we can to point, Sir John? Stephen Mosley and I heard an ensure that the very best levels of containment are extremely good lecture last week by three medical delivered. physicists. Amongst them was Steve Keevil from If I can walk you through one or two of the organisms across the river, and Carl Rowbottom from The Christie. There was a third chap from Gloucester that we would need to study, it illustrates that the whose name slips my mind at the moment. Among hazard might not be as great as is feared. For example, other things in their presentation, they were focusing there is an important programme in malaria—that is upon the advances there had been in radiation at containment level 3—but the parasite is only therapies and less invasive techniques such as proton dangerous if you inoculate yourself. The same goes therapies and so on. As I recall, they were saying that for human immunodeficiency virus—HIV. there are 29 or 30 such centres around the world but Obviously, we all know that tuberculosis is infectious none in the UK yet. Does this kind of investment in and serious but it can be treated. I would be confident your project militate against such developments in that I have been exposed to tubercle bacilli in the the UK? London Underground on the way here this morning. Harpal Kumar: Not at all. You may or may not be Particularly, the same goes for influenza viruses as aware that there is a piece of work under way at the well. One has read of alarmist claims that there are Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 9
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport other very dangerous organisms that are going to be responsibility for the release, which I thought was studied there. They are not and they can’t be at the very unfortunate considering the commercial damage level of containment that we are planning. It must that had been done. You have quite a complicated have been pretty difficult if you lived in the local partnership set-up here. Who is ultimately responsible community, you opened a newspaper and you saw for safety? these claims. I hope one of the things that your Professor Savill: If I can answer that, this was one of scrutiny can clear up is this unfortunate the factors that led us to agree that we needed a single misunderstanding. structure and a single governance. Health and safety was crucial in this. There is a single structure, a single Q48 Roger Williams: One of the things you have to governance and a single director. Although the genesis guard against is a deliberate intent to cause harm of that single body may look complicated, it is going either by extremist organisations or whatever. How is to be one thing with one person ultimately the building designed to minimise those sort of risks? responsible. That was one of the considerations in the Sir Mark Walport: We have been aware of all of these beginning so as to avoid this uncertainty. issues. There have been extensive discussions with security advisers and the Metropolitan Police, and we Q52 Roger Williams: Will it be a nominated person are satisfied that the building design will manage all who is responsible for this? of the risks. As John Savill says, the organisms that Sir Mark Walport: The chief executive will be will be studied in the building are organisms that are responsible for health and safety and we will have a studied in many laboratories in the United Kingdom delegated structure as in any good research institute. in city environments. There are many category 3 facilities scattered around research institutions in Q53 Roger Williams: Can you tell us whether there cities. The term “category 3” reflects the fact that are going to be any experiments on live animals health and safety is taken very seriously. It is managed taking place? in a very secure way. Sir Mark Walport: Yes, there will be. There will be rodents. Q49 Roger Williams: This facility will be very close to some important strategic hubs of people being moved around in transport facilities. Q54 Roger Williams: You will have 1,500 staff. If Sir Mark Walport: That is absolutely true, because as there had to be an evacuation, where would you put John Savill has just pointed out, the risks of infection them all? are far more from people outside of facilities by Sir Mark Walport: An evacuation plan will obviously people travelling around. Influenza and tuberculosis is be part of that. Health and safety involves that, and in the community, but malaria is not a disease that is health and safety will be properly managed. I can’t in the UK. So there are no new principles at stake tell you the precise assembly site at the moment, but here. that will be planned. Professor Savill: If I can further reassure you, I hope, I took the trouble to get some numbers from the Q55 Roger Williams: Apart from scientists and Health and Safety Executive. There are 781 highly trained technologists, there will be other staff containment level 3 facilities licensed in the UK, with employed, such as security, cleaners, maintenance and probably well over 100 in Greater London alone. whatever. How will their record on security be There is nothing particularly unusual about this scrutinised? facility. I think it has rather been blown out of Sir Mark Walport: Again, there are no new principles proportion. I understand the concerns. Clearly, any for UKCMRI than for any of the other laboratories in major building in London, including the one we are London, around the country and in any city. The sitting in, is a terrorist target, and that has been answer is there will be proper HR procedures for all carefully considered. I do not think that release of the staff. In terms of health and safety, health and safety organisms we are going to study at the dose one would is the responsibility of everyone working in a find would constitute a major chance for terrorists to building. Good health and safety management, which inflict harm. will happen, has very clear lines of responsibility and accountability, which all ultimately devolve to the Q50 Roger Williams: You have told us that you chief executive. propose to use level 3 biohazard elements in your research work. Can you confirm now that there won’t Q56 Gavin Barwell: I am grateful for the answers in be any level 4 biohazards in this facility? relation to biohazard. I think it would be very helpful Professor Savill: Absolutely, correct. if one of the things that comes out of our investigation Sir Mark Walport: Correct. is to provide some reassurance. You said that you were only going to work with up to level 3 agents. Q51 Roger Williams: I visited Pirbright shortly after The National Institute for Medical Research currently the release of the foot and mouth virus. It seemed to works up to and including level 4. Is that correct? me that the prosaic rather than the spectacular was the Professor Savill: It has a facility licence for that. cause of many of these virulent materials. One of the There are some confusions around the particular problems on the Pirbright site was that it was not only legislation and whether it is COSHH or SAPO. It is a Government facility but there was commercial in our submission. Again we can clarify that for you activity going on. In the end, nobody took in writing. It would be important to do that. It is clear Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 10 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Professor Malcolm Grant, Harpal Kumar, Professor Sir John Savill and Sir Mark Walport that the scientific plans will work with the level 3 submission from the national trade union side who facility, as Mr Williams drew out earlier. expressed concern that they have not yet been consulted on what will happen to the staff. When do Q57 Gavin Barwell: Will the work that is done at you plan on involving the trade unions? NIMR now in terms of level 4 go if it is not going to Professor Savill: I made one or two inquiries about the new centre? that and I am not sure that that statement is absolutely Professor Savill: Would you say that again? true in that the convenor of the national trade union side was not involved. The crucial point is that we Q58 Gavin Barwell: The briefing we have says that have not been able to consult anyone because we have the National Institute for Medical Research currently not reached the point where that is appropriate. We is licensed up to level 4. So the work that is done at are now moving towards that. level 4 at the moment clearly cannot come into the Broadly speaking, all the stakeholders would like to new centre because you are only going to work up to understand the shape of the institute and its staff level 3 agents. within the next 15 or so months, so we are moving Professor Savill: We are going to have to look very now into an important consultation phase with staff. carefully at the legacy of the NIMR. Again, my Irrespective of the provenance of that submission, understanding is that the facilities available will allow MRC could not have consulted with staff because we transfer of the work that we plan. didn’t know the project was going to go ahead.
Q59 Pamela Nash: That leads me on to NIMR. Are Q61 Pamela Nash: Are you confident that any there any arrangements as yet in place for the closure uncertainty about the future of NIMR or the future of of the Mill Hill site? the staff and their possible positions at the new centre Professor Savill: Again, the first thing to say is that, will not have a negative impact on the work that is clearly, this project has been subject to a series of going on there at the moment? scrutiny events. Indeed, if the business case had not Professor Savill: I think we are going to have very been approved, that might have stopped the project in clear evidence as to whether that is the case later this its tracks. So it is only now that we can be more year because we are engaged, as I said earlier, in the confident that the project is going forward. As you five-year scrutiny, the quinquennial review. If there heard earlier, staff at both of the two major parent has been destabilisation of science, it will be very organisations have been deeply involved in thinking clear in terms of output and productivity. So far, the about the new institute. I recently visited staff at information we have is that things are going extremely NIMR, met a good number of them at a town hall well at NIMR. Having met the staff, there is an event and there was much useful discussion and enthusiasm about looking forward. It is paramount enthusiasm. Obviously, staff will now need to be that we don’t lose momentum. I think we will have consulted as we understand how UKCMRI will go good evidence to reassure us within a few months. forward. Clearly, the human resources departments of both MRC and CRUK will be working closely with Q62 Pamela Nash: We will look forward to that. Just staff. briefly before we finish, you mentioned the site at Mill I emphasise staff because the people are the most Hill. You said the plan was to sell it on. Are there important asset. They do the science and they are very decontamination issues with that site? Would it be important. It is important to make sure they possible just to lock it up and pass it on? understand what is happening and that they can buy Professor Savill: Decontamination is a strong word. into it. Certainly the MRC anticipates that the vast Decommissioning, yes, because in any biological majority of staff would relocate or positions would facility or medical research facility you have to be relocate. scrupulous about making sure that no hazards are left As regards the site, again, we touched earlier on behind. That will be an issue. It has been part of transition. There is going to be a need to MRC’s financial planning as well because it is part of decommission facilities and so forth. Ultimately, the the transition. plan is that that site would be sold if Government Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your permission is given for that. evidence this morning. We look forward to the additional information that you have undertaken to Q60 Pamela Nash: Just to go back to staff, I am glad pass to us. Thank you. that you have given that reassurance. We received a
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Natalie Bennett, Chair, Rob Inglis, Press Officer, and Frankie Biney, local resident, St. Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action, gave evidence.
Q63 Chair: Our second group of witnesses is from Natalie Bennett: My name is Natalie Bennett. I am the St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action the chair of SPA. group. May I, first of all, invite you to introduce Rob Inglis: My name is Rob Inglis. I am the press yourselves for the record? officer of SPA. Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 11
9 February 2011 Natalie Bennett, Rob Inglis and Frankie Biney
Frankie Biney: I am Frankie Biney and a member journals that showed the evidence for this rather than of SPA. just an assertion that this was the case. I am pleased that there is one peer-reviewed paper, but one peer- Q64 Chair: Thank you very much. You heard the reviewed paper perhaps only goes so far. earlier evidence that we have taken. No doubt that is One of the things that did not come up in the going to help inform some of your responses. There discussion earlier is the idea that physical proximity is a group of MPs who represent a diverse set of is necessary for clustering in this day and age, given constituencies here, including mine, which, that we all have Skype, video-conferencing and supposedly, has the second biggest hazard site in instant messaging. I am sure that most of us in our England. We might be pressing you very hard on some daily lives use those and are quite close to people we issues but not without some understanding of your may never even have met but with whom we have concerns. regular contact. Why is it the case, in this day and age, In your written evidence to the Committee you that clustering requires a physical proximity? That is acknowledge the benefits of creating a medical a very 20th century idea in the 21st century. research centre in the UK. Is that correct? Clustering is one thing, but packing people in like Natalie Bennett: Very much so. We are not at all sardines, which some of your questions have attested opposed to medical research. We very much respect to, is another question altogether. If you look at our the work that scientists do. There are, as has been submission, there is a memorandum from Steven Ley referred to earlier, some opponents of the labs who from the NIMR from 2004 that your predecessors have concerns about that, but that does not represent heard. He was expressing great concern about the either our view or the view of the people of St Pancras move into central London. The expansive 47 acres at and Somers Town ward. However, it is interesting that Mill Hill being crammed into 3 acres in central the consortium, when they first started talking to us, London was something about which he expressed said the things that they were going to do were going great concern. That was an expression of concern to be great for the health of the people of St Pancras from within the medical research community. There and Somers Town. Perhaps we will have a chance really have to be some questions about cramming later to tell you a bit more about St Pancras and people together in this tiny space. Somers Town, but it is a very disadvantaged Finally, there is one more point I would like to make community, a very low-income community, where on this. Pharmaceutical companies seem to be moving people don’t often have access to healthy food or the away from large centralised research facilities, as we chance to exercise. They live in overcrowded housing. have seen recently with Pfizer at Sandwich. Is this There is a lack of hope and economic opportunity. We actually the way forward or is this a 20th century don’t need research or medical science to give us the dinosaur that is being left? Having raised that point, I answer to those things. In terms of the health of am going to refer to Rob, who has some more to say Somers Town, there is not a lot to offer, but we think on that. medical science is a good thing and we are not Rob Inglis: I want to put some contrasts in scientific opposed to it in any way at all. research. Guido Pontecorvo, the geneticist who became the head of Cancer Research UK, had Q65 Chair: Having a concentration of high-quality previously pioneered genetics at Glasgow University, jobs on your doorstep is not a disadvantage, is it? where he had made important discoveries in a very Natalie Bennett: Under the section 106 agreement modest setting—originally a bombed-out basement, they have made with the council, they are offering 20 with one 15-year-old apprentice and a wastepaper building apprenticeships. Of course, that will only be basket for a filing system. during the construction period. They are talking about Let us leap forward to the present, where scientists at five lab apprenticeships a year. In a community of Mill Hill on 47 acres have achieved Nobel awards and 13,000 people, many of whom are unemployed, five have developed translational science in collaboration jobs a year is obviously not to be sneezed at, but we with Cancer Research UK, UCL and hospitals, clinics are not talking about a significant impact on the and universities throughout London, Britain and community in that sense. overseas. Now we envisage a superlab on 3.6 acres at St Pancras Q66 Chair: Do you agree with the evidence that you to speed up the time it takes to develop new treatments have heard from the four partners that clustering from bench to bedside because the cathedral for scientists together will be beneficial to medical science will be within walking distance of the research in the UK? partners—Wellcome, UCL and Cancer Research. If Natalie Bennett: It is immediately obvious that we speed is so important, why within walking distance? are not medical experts, but because we have been Why not sprinting distance? And St Pancras would be very interested in this project we have had a lot of convenient for visiting scientists. It would also be a calls to look into it. I come from a science short distance for any infectious escape from the lab, background. My first degree was science, although I but that was not considered. don’t call myself a scientist. One of the things that I, personally, have been very interested in is that Sir Q67 Graham Stringer: This project has funding John Savill said he produced one peer-reviewed paper permission; it is funded. What are your objectives which indicated that there were benefits from the sort now? of clustering that he was talking about. That is Natalie Bennett: In short, we are relying on you. You interesting, because I have been asking for at least the are, realistically, our last hope. Perhaps there is a faint last year—I have been involved with this particularly hope that there might be a Government wearing another hat—for evidence from peer-review reconsideration given the fact that we are talking Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 12 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Natalie Bennett, Rob Inglis and Frankie Biney about £220 million of Government money. I am sure shifting to 3.6 acres at St Pancras if you are going to that all of you in your individual constituencies can have a lower level? Level 3 was quoted a lot today. think of a lot of things that you could do with £220 Level 3+ has been quoted via Camden Council and at million. What has happened with this project all along a public meeting with John Cooper, a representative is that it has been rushed along with some very of UKCMRI on 4 October, he said, in response to a influential people going, “It’s great, it’s great, it’s question, “Well, the levels may change over time.” great.” It’s a high prestige, high profile project. That is one thing. We are the people of Somers Town. People have been The next thing is, though there may well be places in opposed to this, but for many of the people who have London that could be considered a biohazard in case been opposed to this, like Steven Ley, about whom I of an escape, is there anything so dense in such a was speaking earlier, it is very difficult to oppose from sensitive place as what is being mooted here? I accept within the scientific community. As I am sure you are that British scientists have an exemplary safety record. all aware, the scientific community is quite close-knit. This is what I have been told by UKCMRI, but they If you are involved in medical research, you know do not have a perfect safety record. We published a who will be peer reviewing your research papers and long list of fines issued against British labs for who will be considering your application for research spillages over recent years. It is a big list, and I am funding. It is a very close-knit community. It is very sure your Committee could get a much vaster one than difficult. we were able to get. These spillages could occur so For us to directly answer your question, there are two near to St Pancras station and the Northern Line. In things. We can hope that the Government look at that the basement of the British Library I am told they can £220 million and think that there are many other hear the Northern Line going through, and it is very important things they could do with it, or, secondly, near to the water table. It is a big consideration if there having looked at this project critically—and I was is any spillage in a densely domestically populated very impressed by the questions this morning that you area. To me, it is terribly important if there is any clearly are looking at it critically—you could say, spillage that seeps through in innumerable ways into “This is a really bad idea and we are the people who St Pancras station. What are the repercussions and are going to say that this is a bad idea and you should who is responsible for that? stop.” That is what I would very much hope for. We felt so strongly about this that we have sent letters Rob Inglis: Could I add to that that the financial to senior Cabinet Ministers and to the Prime Minister situation in Britain is degenerating rapidly? It is going asking them whether they acknowledge a duty of care. to take four years, so UKCMRI say, to build this and Nobody has replied in regard to the safety of four years to bring people from one place and all the Londoners and visitors to London via St Pancras. instruments in. But what if something happens as Nobody has said that this is a stupid question, nobody happened with the construction of the British Library, has said that they acknowledge this duty of care and which was delayed for 15 years because of various nobody has said that they don’t acknowledge it. They things, including flooding and the water table, into have all passed their letter on to somebody else, but which they had to drive piles as deep as the engineer nobody will answer this question: who can take knew anywhere in London. The same sort of things responsibility for anything, unlikely as it may be, will have to happen with UKCMRI. Who knows what unforeseen, in the next 50 years? Those are our unforeseen delays there may be? How many years will feelings about the scheme. it be before this vast construction is completed and Natalie Bennett: I think that Frankie might like to before it begins to deliver science? make a point. We ask that you consider the tremendous cost of the Frankie Biney: Yes. I have lived in Somers Town for building, the time involved and that during that time the past 20 years and been involved in numerous money is not being spent directly on scientific projects like bicycle projects. We had a community research. So far as cancer goes, we heard one of the centre by a local pub, which is where we had our councillors who was on our side, in the hearing in bicycles fixed, the parents knew each other and so on. Camden, saying that she had collected money for When they came to build St Pancras station, we were cancer charities. She said, “How will cancer charities all promised, “Oh, it’s all good for your community”, feel if they think their money is going into this blah, blah, blah, blah. That went up. Most of the massive building when it ought to be going more community broke up. The pub was taken out. We directly to help with research?” couldn’t have our bicycle projects where we wanted them to be. We have got that big building. We have Q68 Graham Stringer: Can you tell me what your got the Unison building. If you live in St Pancras and main safety and security problems are? You have you see all these things going up, then you wonder, heard the evidence of previous witnesses. “What are they doing for us and the community?” We Rob Inglis: Yes. are not getting anything out of it. To the best of my knowledge, that plot, when it was Q69 Graham Stringer: There is nothing unusual sold, was supposed to be 50% housing for the about having this level of hazard within urban areas. community, whereby we will have a community The people involved have very good safety records. facility where we can socialise, and that’s for the Why don’t you believe them? What are your people who live in Somers Town. All we are seeing concerns? is buildings coming up. The university has put a big Rob Inglis: First of all, Mill Hill has a level 4 building up there somewhere. They are just taking allowance. Why spend all this amount of money over. Basically, there are a whole lot of people leaving Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 13
9 February 2011 Natalie Bennett, Rob Inglis and Frankie Biney the community. We are just a handful left. So what withdraw from one to join another.” When asked advantage is all this? Yes, we want some science, but about the push for more translational medicine why use the little plot that we have? It is the last plot research, Sir Paul said: “I’m beginning to think that in Somers Town. Why should they have that? Why this is something that nobody has got on top of can’t we use it as something for the community? properly. We have scientists, clinicians, the Natalie Bennett: I am so sorry. We did get a little pharmaceutical industry. I’m not certain we’ve away from your question. To sum up, we have a site worked hard enough on the sociology of that, to get that is almost literally within spitting distance from that to work well.” It seems to me as though Sir Paul’s the Eurostar Terminal, where you can get to Paris very important contribution came later in the day after within two hours and you will soon be able to get to the original convenience—I say it is a cosy Berlin in four hours or something. If you stood at the convenience—of this site for the partners that had entrance gate and you’ve got really good lungs, you, caused them to come together. literally, could spit into St Pancras station. If you are going to employ a precautionary principle of, “Does Q71 David Morris: So you believe that the Mill Hill it really make sense to put this major facility with site should be developed because of its size and it can health risks there?”, of course it is true that there are be expanded? many labs broadly in the area that do some of this Rob Inglis: Absolutely. We have submitted a paper, work already, but that is a historical accident. Some an amendment, which came from six or eight workers of those historical science buildings have been there at Mill Hill some years ago saying that animals are for, literally, a century or more when that was the housed in four or five different buildings some outskirts of London. Just because things have distance from the main building and if there is a happened in the past and have historically developed, biochemical breakdown, it can’t spread rapidly. It can it does not mean that we have to continue them. be controlled. They also feel that the use of animals Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that often the will be much more economical there; there won’t have consortium has been saying, “Oh, we are only dealing to be so many used and put to death. Moving those with flu.” That is what they often say to the facilities into London is much more difficult. community. Now, that would be the virus that killed Beyond that, if we take this claim seriously of between 50 million and 100 million people in 1918 building an institution which is a challenge to the that has caused widespread panic with H5N1 and world, an example to the world in science, then, swine flu over the past couple of years. While I would surely, we want to do it not by an accident of this agree that there have been some exaggerated tales being convenient for these partners, and then Sir Paul going around, I believe that the security and safety Nurse being asked to join. Surely it needs to be better concerns of the community are very strong, well- planned over a long-range period. We are convinced founded and perfectly reasonable. that Mill Hill is a much better research site. Natalie Bennett: There are lots of practical things, Q70 David Morris: Much of my question has been too, in terms of construction costs. I am sure you are answered by yourselves. It is a fact that the UK is a all well aware, in terms of central London, that world leader in biomedical research and this is an area construction costs are much higher and the potential where we have to build on our success. It has been for interference in construction costs is much greater. explained through Mr Stringer’s question about the Because of the small size of the site—I have seen strategic importance of the rail links and the networks. varying figures—they are going either four or five We have also heard an explanation about the larger storeys down. I can’t tell you precisely the cost per site at Mill Hill and how that does have expansion properties. However, as to the St Pancras site, square foot of excavating five storeys down into a Professor Malcolm Grant, in the previous panel, said water table, into a site with which the British Library that there is no room to expand. Overall, why should had huge problems. Clearly, there are massive extra we disregard the initiative of the four leading costs involved. Just think of all the trucks, in a site of organisations to have this facility placed in St more than 3 acres, carrying five storeys’ worth of Pancras? spoil out of the site besides St Pancras station, on to Rob Inglis: We think this wondrous vision seemed to the Euston Road and all those sorts of things. There have come into existence before Sir Paul Nurse was is a cost factor in that. involved to give it vision. It seemed to be an exciting Also, is this really a suitable site? John Mason, who cluster to accelerate the pace of translational science, is here today, did some figures on this, and of this convenient to the partners and a good place for whole construction, 57.5% of the floor area is plant— scientists dropping off. The actual vision, about which so nearly 60% of it is plant—41% is lab space and you asked questions, seemed to come later, and it still 6% is public area. This is really an industrial building seems to be uncertain. Speakers for UKCMRI said, in central London. That is basically what they are “That will become clearer as time goes on.” putting in, at a far higher cost than it would be if it Could I quote Sir Paul Nurse from the American was at Mill Hill. magazine Science dated 23 July 2010? When asked to describe his vision for UKCMRI, Sir Paul Nurse said: Q72 David Morris: To be devil’s advocate, do you “Size is important for multidisciplinary approach. think all of these new construction jobs coming into Because it’s large, it doesn’t have to have a particular the area would be beneficial to the local economy and focus. It won’t be divided into academic departments. to its general development? Do you think it would be Individuals can belong to several groups and can a good thing for the local economy? Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 14 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Natalie Bennett, Rob Inglis and Frankie Biney
Rob Inglis: The history of such things—the CTRL, all Natalie Bennett: You could, basically, say that we the work on the railways to the rejuvenated St Pancras have been very disappointed by this. The community station, and so far the 67 acres at King’s Cross is, broadly, very uninformed. It is a community, as I Central—shows that they have resulted in very little alluded to, that needs things in different languages. It local employment. We are very sceptical about that. needs lots of access and lots of time. They have Natalie Bennett: I think it would be useful, perhaps, tended to open things during working hours. The to paint a picture of what this community is. Maybe display centre on the site has mostly been opened you think of central London and this isn’t what you during working hours and one Saturday a month. think of. St Pancras and Somers Town has a large, When letters went out, even about the development white, traditional working class community. It also has control hearing meeting, they went to some 700 large Bangladeshi and Somali communities and lots households. We can count in the estates, along the two of other minority communities. More than 30% of the sides, that there are 1,200 households in the people are 19 or under. 20% of them have life limiting immediate vicinity to the site. We think that the long-term illnesses, despite the fact that only 14% of engagement of the community in terms of information them are 60 and over. Only 66% of people describe has been very poor. It is interesting to note, as you their health as good. Nearly 10% describe themselves will see in the UKCMRI’s own submission, that the as permanently sick or disabled. 50% of them rent largest public meeting was the meeting that we called from the council and 20% from social housing and held just before the building application went in. landlords. Nearly 50% of them have a household Rob Inglis: On 4 October. income below £25,000—this, of course, is in central Natalie Bennett: The UKCMRI declined to come to London—and 33% have no qualifications. Also, many that meeting until 12 o’clock on the day of the of them live in hugely overcrowded houses. I was meeting, when they decided that they were going to talking to a lady outside the school recently and she come to the meeting after all, which created some has four children and two adults in a two-bedroom difficulties for us. flat, and that is a small two-bedroom flat. On the broader question of engagement, there is, of As Frankie alluded to, if you think about community course, a section 106 agreement with the council, use of this land, the planning brief was for 50% which contains some useful things in terms of housing and 50% social housing. If you think about contributions to combined heat and power, to decent what would happen to that, some of that, no doubt, homes and those sorts of things, but they are not would be sheltered housing, which would be caring giving the community what it really needs, which is jobs. There would be lots of jobs. You would generate land, space and housing. What is happening is that the at least as many construction jobs in the work. So the consortium is saying, “Because we are a charity we alternative uses for the land would be considerably— don’t have to meet many of the normal requirements hugely—more beneficial for the community, as was of these things”, which is where, of course, the terms recognised by the planning brief that said that this is of the pharmaceutical industry’s involvement starts to what was necessary. become of interest and a question for the community. If you think about Somers Town, it is a community If the pharmaceutical industry is heavily involved in that grew up to support the railways. People this, where is the contribution? traditionally worked on the railways and in associated The UKCMRI used to call it a “Healthy Living industries. What has happened is that the land has Centre”, but they are now calling it a “Living Centre”, been carved away from the community. The British which is, basically, a little room tacked on to the back Library was built. Very few members of the St Pancras end of the actual lab. It is, basically, a room. They and Somers Town community have a job in the British say, “We are going to do things like have yoga Library. St Pancras station ditto. What you are talking classes” and that sort of thing. St Pancras and Somers about are, basically, minimum wage retail jobs that Town, I am sure, is an area similar to what many of are extremely difficult to live on long-term and build your constituencies have. We have the Hillwood Age a life on. These things simply haven’t catered to the Concern Centre, which is expected to close. We have pre-existing community that is there or helped them two community centres that are both gravely at all. We think this is the last piece of land left. concerned about their future in terms of funding of The UKCMRI could go anywhere. We think that the programmes coming in. There is Plot 10, which is staying at Mill Hill would be sensible, but for the the play centre which has been in existence for 30 people of St Pancras and Somers Town this is the last years, that is hugely valued by the community, and space we have left. If the building is constructed, then pupils from four schools walk in little crocodiles each we are, literally, hemmed in, crammed in and afternoon to go to this play centre. All of those things squashed in upon. We will have had our last are threatened and all of those things are buildings opportunity taken away from us. and structures that are in place. A couple of years David Morris: Thank you for a very informed back, when they were talking about this, they might answer. have said, “Oh, it would be nice to have another community centre where we can have some more Q73 Stephen Metcalfe: Can you tell me what sort of space and do some more things”, but that is really no level of engagement you have had between longer the issue. The issue now is who is going to find yourselves, the council and UKCMRI? What are the the funding to run programmes? We are not short of lines of communication between all the organisations rooms but we need the programmes, the services and involved? funding for those things. Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 15
9 February 2011 Natalie Bennett, Rob Inglis and Frankie Biney
In terms of the views of the community, huge numbers attractive spaceship than it was originally, but that is of letters did not go in on the planning application. If basically the extent of the change that has occurred in you went into the council office and saw the folders response to lots of community complaints. and folders of the planning application, and if you tried to download the PDF off the council website, Q76 Gavin Barwell: I would like to pick up on one which has thousands and thousands of pages, it was of Stephen’s previous questions and then we will give very difficult for this community to engage in this you a general wrap-up question at the end. One of the process, but the consortium has not made it easy. things that struck me when you were replying to Frankie Biney: It is so disheartening. When you try Stephen is that this building is very constrained in to gather people to come down and say, “Look, we’ve terms of floor space compared with the provision at got to go to a meeting and go and fight about this Mill Hill. It does seem to be strange that they are laboratory”, they say, “No, forget about it. It’s going giving you, albeit you say a room, this Living Centre, to be built anyway.” From past experience, everything that you don’t actually want, and what you would that we have fought for, we have never got anything. rather have is some kind of contribution to keep the So people are just disheartened. existing centres going that you have in your Rob Inglis: Whether it has been propaganda or community. Have you made that point directly to the whatever, from one of our MPs all the way down, consortium? there has been the statement, “It’s a done deal.” That Natalie Bennett: This is an issue that has only just is because of the commitment of Prime Minister arisen. As you are all well aware, the rate of funding Brown, previously, and seemingly of this cutbacks has shocked everyone in the past few Government, particularly bearing in mind the policies months. That isn’t a discussion we have had with which Vince Cable might pursue. People have felt them. We have had a long discussion about the issue powerless before this. That is why there has not been of housing. As was alluded to earlier, in an earlier the degree of response and protest that we would have incantation they were going to move on to the liked. At Camden Council, just in response to 700 National Temperance Hospital site, which, although it letters, there was a spokesman representing 456 is not actually in St Pancras and Somers Town ward, households in one of the densest areas and there were is basically just on the other side of the railway line. half a dozen local groups that were represented. One of the things that we have talked to them a great deal about, or certain people have, is the potential of Q74 Stephen Metcalfe: How many attended the that going for housing instead as a contribution to the public meeting that you held with UKCMRI? fact that they are not providing the housing that the Natalie Bennett: It was about 80 people. planning brief provided for on the site. This morning with us is Councillor Roger Robinson, Q75 Stephen Metcalfe: Do you feel that they have who is a long-time representative of this area. He will taken any of your views into account? Were there not often refer to the fact that Camden Council has a some proposals to the change of the design of the waiting list of 17,000 households. The consortium building that were incorporated? owns, on the National Temperance Hospital site, a site Natalie Bennett: They did change, basically, the roof that would have the potential to do at least something. line of the building. In a way that was a reaction to We would still much rather have this land but that the fact that the first design was even more bluntly land would be something else. They are still intending and obviously an industrial building. It looked like a to sell that at commercial rates on a commercial basis. building that belonged on an industrial estate that you would find on the outskirts of Luton or some such—I am sorry, at many other places and industrial estates Q77 Gavin Barwell: You have put on the record very on the outskirts of towns. They changed that design clearly what you would consider to be a better because there was an outcry, but that was an outcry community contribution if this plan has to go ahead. about appearance. Whether it looks more attractive You have heard the answer that they gave in the earlier now you can argue about. Perhaps it does. It was more session in relation to whether the project will be glass mirrored walls before. They have now put in delivered in budget and on time. I wanted to give you some fake stone. So it is less like that. a chance at the end to make any comments that any If you look at the submission that came into the of you would like to make about that as a final wrap- council from the conservation area committee, up question. because it is on the edge of a conservation area, that Natalie Bennett: I will start on that. I was taken by a committee was strongly opposed to the plan on quote. I didn’t write down who said it. One of the appearance grounds. This is right besides St Pancras witnesses said that very careful thought was given to station, which is grade 1 listed. It is one of the most the site. When you think about that, it is astonishing. valued architectural buildings in the country. It is right First, this is a project that started with two partners beside the British Library, which, although it may not and they bought the National Temperance Hospital be old enough to be listed yet, I am sure will be one site, and then they decided it was too small. Your day. It is also right beside Chamberlain House and predecessors on a previous Science and Technology Levita House, which are grade 2 listed examples of Committee were pretty scathing about the way they very valuable early social housing. What it looks like, had rushed into that particular purchase. Then they really, is an alien spaceship that has come down and rushed over here and basically tried to whack the been plonked right in the middle of these valued largest possible thing they could get away with on to historic buildings. It now might be a slightly more this site. Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o001_CM_S&T 110209 UKCMRI HC 727 i FINAL.xml
Ev 16 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
9 February 2011 Natalie Bennett, Rob Inglis and Frankie Biney
One of the other speakers said, “This will come in on Frankie Biney: Since it is our last bit of space, time and on budget.” Quite reasonably, a member of Somers Town needs something for the community. We the Committee had some doubts about that. If you have got everything around us but what about us? look at the history of the site, it would be astonishing Rob Inglis: If I could just add, John Mason, who is if this project, on a site in central London with all the here, has made the point that what is this current plan problems, came in on time and on budget. They don’t for UKCMRI but Mill Hill transposed to a smaller really know what they are going to do with this site. space plus one public hall, and a fairly small one at They are creating a big fancy thing and hoping it will that? What’s the difference? We query how much fill up, work out and turn out to be wonderful. They more effective and faster the furnishing of new are spending a lot of public money and charity money medical developments will be because of the location in the process. vis-à-vis Mill Hill. Rob Inglis: We feel that, whatever they aim to do and Natalie Bennett: If I could take one minute on that state to do here, it could be done much more safely point, 60% of this is plant. Here you are in central and in a much more building-for-the-future way at London basically putting a factory there. The officer Mill Hill. We noted from one of the previous for the council said: “…assurances were given to statements from Steven Ley to one of your previous Members that chemical fumes emitted from the committees that the decision to leave Mill Hill was building would be dispersed. They may give rise to irregularly arrived at. The vote was via telephone and smells in the short term, but would cause no harm.” email, it was 5 to 4, and the casting vote was the Just imagine if President Sarkozy hops off the chairman’s. We feel that that clearly was influenced Eurostar, sniffs and says, “Gosh, why did they put a by the lure of moving to central London as though factory in central London right beside the Eurostar Mill Hill were an impossible journey. It is not. It is Terminal? about 10 to 15 minutes on the train. The fact is that Chair: You can’t have all the factories in other the National Temperance Hospital was bought and constituencies. Your group has made yourself very then there is sudden realisation it is not big enough. clear. You regard it as a carbuncle, although not Then the partners get together and say, “Ah, how necessarily a monstrous one. It is in the wrong place great. There is this site right besides St Pancras and it is the wrong project for the location. You have Station.” I believe it is a matter of convenience and been extremely clear to us and we thank you very novelty. All those things come together in a much for your helpful evidence today. Thank you. whirlwind. Then Sir Paul Nurse is brought in to introduce a vision. We believe that the whole thing has hurtled along in an imprecise and ill-thought-out way. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 17
Wednesday 16 February 2011
Members present: Andrew Miller (Chair)
Gavin Barwell Pamela Nash Stephen Metcalfe Graham Stringer David Morris Roger Williams Stephen Mosley ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Sir Paul Nurse, Chief Executive and Director, UKCMRI Ltd, Sir David Cooksey, Chairman, UKCMRI Ltd, and John Cooper, Chief Operating Officer, UKCMRI Ltd, gave evidence.
Q78 Chair: May I, first of all, invite any colleagues variety of ways. It will also be very supportive of the who might have any declarations of interest in this other sectors that need to use that knowledge—the matter? national health service, the for profit sector—for Gavin Barwell: Chairman, I am a member of the commercial development and translation. I have taken Royal Society MP Scientist Pairing Scheme, and I am it on because I am very excited by it. paired with Dr Emily Nurse, who is the daughter of I have the CEO position for five years, renewable for Sir Paul Nurse. a further five years. For the first five years I will be setting up the institute. I will provide the strategic Q79 Chair: That is for the record. Gentlemen, thank leadership to get the building in place, to develop you very much for coming this morning. I would be ways in which the institute can operate well, to grateful if, for the record, you would introduce develop the scientific strategy and to merge two yourselves. institutes that form 70% to 80% of the final institute, Sir Paul Nurse: My name is Paul Nurse. I am the one in central London, at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, with chief executive of UKCMRI, half-time at the moment Clare Hall out at Potters Bar, and the second the until March 1, and I am also President of the Royal National Institute for Medical Research out at Mill Society. Hill. So we also have to do a merger. Sir David Cooksey: I am David Cooksey. I am the After that first five years of setting it up, if the board chairman of the board of UKCMRI, a former venture still wishes it, I will take on running the institute. capitalist and I hold various other governmental appointments at the moment. Q81 Chair: It is your intention to see through that John Cooper: I am John Cooper. I am the chief initial start-up period through to 2018? operating officer of UKCMRI. Sir Paul Nurse: If the board wishes me to do that, it is certainly my intention. Q80 Chair: Thank you. Sir Paul, we want to start off by exploring your role in this. Why did you take on Q82 Chair: You are a busy man. You are head of the this challenge? Royal Society, as you indicated. You are also involved Sir Paul Nurse: It was straightforward because this in the Rockefeller University in New York. How are is, truthfully, the most exciting biomedical research you going to divide your time? initiative for a generation in the United Kingdom. It Sir Paul Nurse: I have resigned from Rockefeller. I is an extremely important project. It is one which is am only covering for the next few weeks because my looked upon with envy from the community around successor could not take on the position until the first the world. I have to say that they are really worried week of March. I said I would do it half-time for out there about what we might do with this. It is a January and February, just to mind the shop while my very exciting initiative. successor comes in place, but I have no future role in I could talk at length about it, but the fact is that we running Rockefeller. are going to do all sorts of things very differently. Our objective is to understand how living things work and Q83 Chair: We are worried about your carbon to use that knowledge to benefit humanity that is footprint. particularly directed at translation and commercial Sir Paul Nurse: I am worried about it, too. I am also development. We have looked at how we operate in worried about my jetlag, but that is another issue. I an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary way and am also still a practising scientist, which I know many will have a dynamic career structure that will train people find unexpected, but I have been doing this for early career researchers and then help place them many years. I still run a laboratory. My laboratory will elsewhere in the UK. We will have a major national run in Rockefeller for the next few months until I can role, and this is a very important point for this transfer it and set it up in London. I have managed to Committee to appreciate. Research institutes have a get a research grant to support that laboratory in long and excellent tradition in this country. This London and I will be transferring that later in the year. institute will not only carry out the highest quality How will I do this? The first thing is that I work quite biomedical research, but it will also act to support the hard. I am used to covering a range of roles. The entire biomedical research endeavour in the UK in a second point is that the Royal Society position is a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Ev 18 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper part-time position. It is not a full-time position. Most building has a “4” in front of it. I am nervous about importantly, I have two points to make about giving away commercially confidential information UKCMRI. First, we are in the set-up phase at the because we are negotiating and we will be continuing moment. I do not have operational responsibilities for to negotiate the contract. I hope you will understand, running large numbers of scientists. Those scientists, if there is an air of imprecision, that I am not trying the 70% or 80% who are involved in the two to hide anything. In addition to the construction costs, institutes, are run by the two institute directors, who we also have to pay fees, which are the normal fees are sitting behind us. So I do not have operational that you pay on a building project. We are not using roles. I have planning roles. These are important, of anything special. We have a contingency that is about course, but they are not the same as operations. 15% of the construction cost. That is the contingency The second point is that UKCMRI has an that we have left at the end of stage D of the design, extraordinarily strong backing team. Not only do we which is a fairly advanced stage of the design. That is have an excellent board, chaired by David here, but a good position to be in. We also have a contingency John has done a wonderful job in getting us through for inflation. All those things get factored into the total to the point where we are now over many difficulties, cost. But if you look at the actual basic construction and he is remaining with us. I am very pleased with cost of this building it has a “4” in front of it, not the strength of the team which will absolutely support a “6”. me in, as you rightly say, a complicated life. Q86 Stephen Metcalfe: I suppose the question is Q84 Chair: Before I move on to other colleagues, what you get for your “4” plus some other figures. were you involved in any of the prior planning issues John Cooper: We will get a building that is not flashy or are you coming in as a new boy on the block now? but very solid, which we aim to be fit for purpose for Sir Paul Nurse: No. The idea of merging the two 50 or 60 years. We want this to be a building in which institutes was mine originally back in 1999 or 2000. It we will be able to do good science not just in 2015, never got any traction so it never got beyond informal when it opens, but 50 years after that. It is very conversation. I made the proposal that the two important to get buildings right at the beginning. I institutes could perhaps merge when I was in charge know this from personal experience, having worked of Cancer Research UK. I was thinking of the Dome for the Wellcome Trust on a couple of major projects. when nobody knew quite what to do with it after In one project the building was not right at the 2000. Moving to the Dome was a stupid idea, I have beginning and we had to spend a lot of money getting to say. The idea of merging them wasn’t stupid, but it it right, and in another we did get it right at the got no traction. beginning and it works. I was then involved in 2004 when the MRC was Sir Paul Nurse: Could I add something? thinking of moving the institute at Mill Hill to a very John Cooper: Of course. small site in Camden, the National Temperance Sir Paul Nurse: I realise we are talking about just the Hospital. I was on the scientific review body. That building costs and you may well want to talk about the was not a good plan. The site was too small, it wasn’t operational costs, but it is worth emphasising several well thought through, in my view, and quite a lot of things. The first is that our operational costs will be the rumblings you occasionally hear about now are above £100 million, so the actual cost of the building directed at the discussions that occurred at that time. is not much more than three or four years of our Although I supported a move into central London, running costs. Often this is not realised. It is soon which is essential and which we can talk about if you disappeared in the running costs. wish, that plan was not a good plan. In contrast, this The second is the point that John made. This is a one is excellent. It is a completely different animal. I building usable for up to 70 or 80 years. If you think think that is worth emphasising because I was not so on that time scale, then, once again, the investment is content with the discussions that occurred around in a good quality building but not a ludicrously over- 2004. spec’d building, like some not so far from here in some respects. It will be a very good building for the Q85 Stephen Metcalfe: Good morning. Last week future. we explored the costs of the project. I have to put on The third point, thinking of your public scrutiny role, record that I think the project itself, as a concept, is is this: remember that half the costs for the building fantastic but I have great concerns about the cost. Can and more than half the costs for the operations are you run me through why the building itself is so coming from non-government sources. They are expensive? £650 million is a huge amount of money coming from two major charities, a fund-raising in today’s terms and, as I understand it, that does not charity, CRUK, the Wellcome Trust and also a include the fitting out costs. That would be an university. I would suggest that it is a bargain for additional expense. Can you explain to me what you Government funding, in actual fact, because of that are getting for your money? public-private partnership. Sir Paul Nurse: Do you want to lead and I’ll follow on, John? Q87 Stephen Metcalfe: I can appreciate that. The John Cooper: The £650 million, which Harpal Kumar expense of the building does strike me as a high cost. quoted last week, includes the construction cost, the I have not been able to ascertain how big the building land purchase, which was £85 million, and an estimate is in terms of floor space. of some in-kind contributions that Cancer Research John Cooper: It is 90,000 square metres external and UK is making. The actual construction cost of the about 83,000 square metres internal. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 19
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper
Q88 Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you. Those are useful table, we are in the order of £65 million. That is close facts to know. I want to know whether the location, to the middle of that estimate, and it can only go because of the challenges, has increased the cost and upwards from there. Although I do not underestimate whether the money that is being put into the bricks the challenges here—they are challenges and you are and mortar may be better used to fund the research at right to point them out—at this stage in the project, I a time when we are all financially challenged. I know am very comfortable that not only can we get it fully money is coming in from other organisations, fitted out with the money we have available, but also charities, etcetera, but I wonder whether those people that we can equip it well and effectively. who donated to the charities thought it was going to Sir David Cooksey: Could I just come in to answer go into bricks and mortar as opposed to research. That your question about whether this is the right way to does bring me back to my original question which is: be spending the money of charities? First of all, I was how much will it cost to fit out in addition to the a governor of the Wellcome Trust for a number of building? years. It was during that period, about 12 years ago, Sir Paul Nurse: There are several points in that that we initiated with Government the Joint question. Infrastructure Fund, and SHRIF afterwards, to rebuild John Cooper: I am happy to deal with the fit-out the university research facilities because they had question. been run down in a very big way. The Wellcome Trust Sir Paul Nurse: Do not forget also that the is very much dedicated to building places to carry out Department of Health is putting up a big chunk of good science as well as funding the science itself. money because they see the advantages for the NHS. In the case of Cancer Research UK, they are having a I only say that in these discussions about research special fund-raising subscription to this institute. funding and so on, but that is worth remembering. From that point of view, the people providing that Two major institutes are being replaced by this funding will know exactly where it is going. I do not project. Mill Hill was designed in the 1930s and built think there is any problem with regard to your in the 1930s, although only occupied after the war in question. the ’40s. Lincoln’s Inn Fields was put up in the ’50s and early ’60s, and Clare Hall in the ’80s. So two of Q89 Chair: You do not think there are any problems, these buildings are very old infrastructure and if you but last week we heard confident noises from the are going to remain at the cutting edge of science you Wellcome Trust that the building will come in on have to replace such buildings with proper ones, fit budget and on time. Yet, Mr Cooper, you said earlier for purpose. At the present time, Mill Hill, for certain, on that there have been occasions when Wellcome is not fit for purpose—or won’t be within a few years. Trust projects’ buildings have had problems. This is Lincoln’s Inn is just staggering along but won’t be right in the heart of central London. It is not good for more than about another 10 years. We need that civil engineering territory. There are problems investment and we need that investment in good associated with your needs to have vibration-free buildings. I am saying that that is a necessity. buildings and so on. What degree of confidence do Building in central London will cost a little more but you have in coming in on budget, on time? it is imperative that we are in central London, and that John Cooper: I am very confident but not complacent. is something we can talk about a little later. The extra There are lots of challenges that we will have to deal cost of building in London is more than needed with, but we have a good team. We have a very good because of what we have to do there. construction director who has worked on a number of You are also interested in the fitting out costs and major projects, including in the pharmaceutical equipment. I will respond to equipment and John can industry as well as other big infrastructure projects. deal with the fitting out costs. Actually, I can deal with We have a bunch of people who know what they are that. Essentially, we have the money for the fitting out doing. costs. That is in the budget. My reference to an inferior building related to certain As to the equipment, we haven’t quite got the detailed aspects of the design of one of the institutes that I plans, but let us look at what those plans are. The subsequently took over. It was not one of my jobs. But estimates we have on the total equipment range from I resolved, immediately, that any job I was involved in £45 million to £105 million, depending on how much would be designed properly and would be fit for we transfer from the previous institutes. If we transfer purpose long-term. I also resolved that a budget that I most of it, the figure will be £45 million. If we buy would agree to work to had to be a budget I believed new, it will be £105 million. That is the bracket within we could deliver to. That is the case in UKCMRI as which we are working. well. In the MRC business plan, which is a little complicated, about half of it, £35 million, is aimed at Q90 Pamela Nash: Most of my questions are for equipment. The two institutes, which will virtually you, Sir Paul. Recently, you gave an interview to work together, have a total income on equipment of Research Fortnight in which you expressed concerns about £6 million a year. So, over the next four to five about the Government’s cuts to science funding. years, there is approximately £30 million coming from Could you share with us, please, your fears for science that source. That is before we even look at the other research infrastructure of the UK? partners and what they may contribute directly, which Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. I was wearing my Royal Society is yet to be fully negotiated. That will include, of hat, of course, for that interview. I was expressing the course, the Wellcome Trust, CRUK and also the fact that we are all pleased, in the science community, university. If you add what we already have on the that operational support for science has not been cut. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Ev 20 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper
It is at zero per cent. But I did want to draw attention the British economy and to the British biomedical to some things in that interview. One was that zero research endeavour. I think UKCMRI is a beacon in a per cent, and not accounting for inflation, which, as rather gloomy period, not just, as you mentioned, for we heard today, is 4%—and it will probably be higher the UK but across the world. You can see that I am in biomedicine—will erode, over the years, the optimistic generally, but there is a good reason to be support we can give to science. That is a longer term optimistic. This is a beacon for the world, partly concern. Secondly, to be clear about the effect of the because it is an excellent scheme but partly because it capital spending, you can absorb the very significant is happening during a time when nearly everybody reduction for a year or two but not for very much else is contracting. longer than that. When you visited CERN a week ago John Cooper: I can only add, from my experience in you saw how expensive these things are and how the Wellcome Trust before I transferred to UKCMRI, much it relies on good capital expenditure. In that that if you have a really good institute, you get really interview I was pointing out that we are pleased with good people. If you have good facilities and good where we are, it could have been a lot worse—we scientists in there, you attract very good people. I am congratulate the Government on what they have confident that Paul will be able to deliver that. The done—but we should not be complacent because if we secret of this will not be a building. The secret of it don’t get the money back into the budget, that is going will be the people who are in there and the work that to be a concern for the future. they do. That is the next thing we have to get right. I Having said all of that, I don’t think this is a particular am confident that we will get the building right, and I issue for UKCMRI. We have the capital money in am confident that Paul will get the science right. place. We have not talked so much about operations, Pamela Nash: We will hold you to that in a few but we feel confident that we are close to having a years’ time. very good solution for operations as well. Although John Cooper: I will have a keen personal interest in I am concerned about science funding overall in the some aspects of the science carried out, I am sure. country, and quite rightly so in the longer term, for UKCMRI it is not such a significant issue at this time. Q94 Pamela Nash: Before I pass over, the Government is a major funder of the centre. Will it Q91 Pamela Nash: Sir David, do you agree with Sir have any direct input to the research that will go on? Paul’s analysis? Yes. Sir Paul Nurse: May I have the first stab and then Sir David Cooksey: Yes. David might want to comment on it? The Government is a major funder but a part-funder. UKCMRI has an Q92 Pamela Nash: That was very easy. In your independent board. The MRC will have a position on comments at the start of this session you said you felt that board so they will have a constant influence that this centre was going to be the envy of the world through that board. You have to remember that about for science research. 40% of the operational costs, as we calculate, will be Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. coming from the MRC. They will have to make a decision every five or so years on whether they Q93 Pamela Nash: But because of these cuts and continue that support, whether they are happy with the their possible impact down the line, and the tripling future plans and whether they are happy with the past of tuition fees, do you have any fears that we may work. They will have very significant influence on the have a world-class institution in London but not have core funding. the UK graduates to populate it? It is also likely that we will have some percentage of Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. Let me say something about response mode funding. We are not sure what, but we that. The fact is that the cuts we are experiencing in suspect it will be 10%, 15% or 20%, something of the UK are not confined to the UK. We are about to that order. That will be direct applications for response see in the United States, where I have worked for the mode funding to the major funders, of which, of past seven years, the switch-off of what I call the course, the MRC is one. There are several ways in “Obama stimulation money”, which increased NIH which the MRC will have influence on what happens funding by about 35% for two years. That 35% boost at the institute. will go away. Sir David Cooksey: Picking up the point that Paul This gives us an enormous potential for recruitment made, there will be a review every five years. The in the coming year. Actually, that is a sideline, but we level of support the Government gives, through the should be quite aggressive about that. That is why I MRC, will depend very much on the satisfactory have been very interested in the immigration changes reviews that take place at that five-year interval. because we don’t want to affect that recruitment. The Pamela Nash: Thank you very much. fact is there is a worldwide funding problem. Why I say that this is seen as an exciting project is because Q95 David Morris: Gentlemen, what impact does the world looks with envy upon the fact that we are Pfizer’s decision to close its facilities at Sandwich in starting something new in a period of gloom and Kent have on the UKCMRI? Will Pfizer’s decision despond, and something that will be very attractive on affect the UK’s world reputation? the world stage. One of our critical strategies, if you Sir David Cooksey: Obviously, we are all very read our vision documents, is to attract the very best distressed about the closure of Sandwich. It is very from around the world to come and work here when interesting to look at Pfizer’s role over the last few they are young and try to encourage them to put down years. They have tended to continue with large roots so that the very best in the world contribute to monolithic research laboratories and do the vast bulk cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 21
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper of their research in-house. If you looked, for instance, which have that breadth are very interesting for the to GSK or AZ you will see that they are now out- future. Increasingly, and this is very early stages, I sourcing more than 50% of the work. The reason for see links and co-operation in the way that David has it, quite frankly, is that the productivity of those large outlined between the NHS, the commercial venture, institutes has not delivered. We are getting into a pharma and also institutions like UKCMRI. If we can period where the very costs of bringing drugs through get this together, we can mount a very good challenge that process to the market do not justify the costs that on the world stage for research of this sort. I am sorry are involved in getting there. You cannot get the I interrupted. income from the drugs, because many of the new Sir David Cooksey: No. I totally agree with Paul. It drugs are serving much smaller patient populations. is absolutely vital that we get this right. There are As a result, as I have said, the pharmaceutical industry many people who want to get it right and UKCMRI is changing its model and wants to work alongside can be a beacon in getting it right. This concentration institutes such as UKCMRI, the universities and other on translation as well as the basic research discoveries MRC and Wellcome-sponsored institutes of various is going to be fundamental to making sure that we, as types. By using that mechanism, they can get to the a nation, are competitive in this field. UKCMRI can basic research discoveries that they need probably do it. more quickly, and certainly more cheaply, and can focus on the ones that are most likely to bring success. The idea is to bring down the total cost of developing Q97 Pamela Nash: The news from Sandwich is, new drugs so that they are affordable by the payers, obviously, very sad for our life sciences sector in the be it the national health service in this country or other UK but, as you are aware, this is not a unique incident. health authorities. It is happening all over Britain, including in my constituency where we had Merck’s facility, which Q96 David Morris: You say that the companies are was closed down at the end of December. You seem outsourcing a lot at this moment in time. Do you think pretty confident that we do have the ability to attract that the sector has lost confidence in the UK as a those life sciences jobs back. Would you expand a viable location for medical research because of that? little more on that and say how long you think it will Sir David Cooksey: If you go back to the report I take for the life sciences industry to recover in this wrote in 2006 on the funding of medical research, I country? Also, on UKCMRI, how will that be touched quite deeply on the subject we have just been involved in that recovery? Will that be UK-wide and discussing in terms of bringing products to market. not just London based? The situation is one where the UK is not joined up. It Sir Paul Nurse: Biomedical research is not only quite is very good at basic research, but in that report I expensive but it has quite a long time scale, so I am pointed out that getting the translation through clinical always very wary when people offer jam next year or development and so on has been relatively poor. It has five years from now. We had a director at the National been characterised, for instance, even between 2002 Cancer Institute in the US who about ten years ago and 2007—which is the date I used in the more recent said that cancer would go away by 2015. That was a biosciences 2015 report, if you use that data—by the really stupid thing to say, and he said it simply to get fact that our participation in international clinical trials another 2% on the budget. has dropped from 6% to 2%. The answer is yes, the You have to be realistic. We are in it for a long time. UK has a problem but a lot of that problem needs to But you should also look back at how the health of be solved by making the national health service much the nation is improving and has improved in the last more accessible for clinical development. The 10, 20, 30 years based on research. We tend not to concentration that has gone on in delivering front-line think about it because it is such a long time scale. services has, in many ways, prejudiced the Everybody always talks about breakthroughs. I prefer participation in clinical research in this country, and the metaphor of “a brick in the wall”. It is much less that has caused very considerable problems for the exciting but it actually reflects the truth. My answer pharmaceutical companies to develop in this country. to you is that this will build up over time. It is not I was very much involved in the life sciences venture something that happens in two or three years. You capital business. It is very difficult to raise venture need to have a research strategy that is both short capital for the life sciences these days because it is so term, which is almost always immediately clinical expensive to do the research here and to carry the research and major clinical trials, medium term, which basic research discoveries through the development processes. You find that the most exciting young is generally translational and which you read much biotech companies are very often going to the United about and requires the application of knowledge, and States to get their trials carried out, not because they also more basic discovery research, which is trying to are cheaper but because you can get on with it more understand how things work. You need to have a quickly and in a more co-ordinated fashion. There is policy that covers all three and it needs to be quite a lot that needs putting right in this country to permeable between all three so that they can inform make sure that we maintain the interests of the major each other. pharmaceutical companies here. My answer to your question is, yes, this is the right Sir Paul Nurse: The NHS is a great resource because, way to go. Expecting that we will get major outcomes again from the US perspective, what you see there is from an investment today in basic research tomorrow an organisation that can cover the entire country, and is not correct, but this is absolutely the right way to trials that have that breadth combined with genomics proceed. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Ev 22 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper
Q98 Stephen Mosley: Sir Paul, would it be fair to you are, in some ways, accountable to the Minister or say, in terms of building the UKCMRI and then to the Government as well? running it when its doors open, that you are, as the Sir Paul Nurse: I am accountable to the board, which director, the guy on whom it ultimately rests to make of course has the four funders. That is the way it will sure it all happens—the guy, essentially, where the work. David might want to say something. buck stops? Sir David Cooksey: The institute has been set up as a Sir Paul Nurse: The buck stops with me, I guess. You separate charity in its own right. Under charity law have to realise that these ventures are only a success we, as a board of trustees, as directors, are totally if you have an excellent team working with you. We responsible for what goes on. The board does have have an excellent project team—we have mentioned representatives of all four of the funders on it. I am that—and we also have an excellent cadre of scientists the only independent director at the moment, but it and scientific leadership, of which two are sitting will have others. behind me. It is that combined team that actually I have had experience of doing this sort of thing in makes it work. But if the question is about who has the past. I was chairman throughout the design and ultimate responsibility, then that is me. build of Diamond, which we did deliver on time and on budget, in a time of quite high building inflation. Q99 Stephen Mosley: That, essentially, is what I was asking. We heard from the Chairman earlier that Sir Q102 Stephen Mosley: When it comes to operating Mark Walport said last week he was extremely the centre, how will you determine what resources in confident that you would complete the building on the centre will be allocated to which particular time and on budget. We have just heard from Mr project—how the space will be allocated, which Cooper that he is very confident but not complacent. particular institute will be in which part of the Have you given any consideration as to what happens building and what work they will be doing, if it does not get completed on time and on budget? essentially? Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. This is the third major building Sir Paul Nurse: We do not have enough hours today research facility I have been involved with. I initiated for me to answer that question. In thinking about the one in Cambridge for about 400 people, I have just strategy we focus a great deal—and you can ask completed one in New York for about 600 people, at questions about it—on why this institute exists, how a total cost of $350 million, and now I am involved it is going to operate and what it is going to do. This in this one. I want to repeat what John said. This has is a good a way to think about it. Why? I have already been planned extremely well, as well as, if not told you that we are trying to understand how living significantly better than the two previous projects. The things work and use it for the benefit for humanity. one that we delivered at Rockefeller came in at 15% That is the top-level vision. under budget—15% under budget—and on time. I We have focused a lot on how you deliver that vision. want to emphasise that I have had some experience What really moves the needle is excellent people. You with these things, I have a good nose for these things need to identify the very best in the world—not just and we have a very good team. in this country. You attract them, you train them to the I do not think that the building will overrun. We have highest standards within the country to generate a set very good control on costs. I know I am a pointy- of really excellent people. This strategy self-assembles headed scientist but I pay attention to this stuff. It is from brilliant individuals. I can’t emphasise that like Mr Micawber, if the money doesn’t work there is enough. You do not control the level of research like always constant distress. We have a very good team a big spider controlling everything that goes on. You who are watching costs. We have a decent assemble a hundred brains that are as good as you, contingency. We also have included a sensible and you give them the tools and release their inflation estimate. I will be extremely surprised if it creativity. You interact with them and you construct did not come in on budget. the strategy that constantly evolves. Are you asking what happens if the world falls apart If you have a small institute—it will be focused and and inflation goes to 15% or something? working on something that is probably fairly trendy today, let’s say stem cells. I can tell you that in 10 Q100 Stephen Mosley: Put simply, is there a plan B years it will be something different. You need to be or not? thinking about a running strategy that evolves with the Sir Paul Nurse: We have some flexibility. We can changing needs and the changing initiatives of the mothball a part of the institute, which would save a time. You do that by focusing on brilliant individuals little money. We could, of course, look at our running and by having a dynamic structure. You may costs. The fact is that that would delay the costs by a remember that what we will do is focus on training. year or two, but there is not a plan B in the sense that Two-thirds of the group leaders will be there for a we have two institutes that are in decaying period of 10 to 12 years—enough time to establish infrastructure and we can’t leave them there. We have their career—and then we help place them elsewhere to solve this problem. But I wouldn’t want this in the country. We have not emphasised that enough Committee to think that we are not really on top of perhaps, but this is part of supporting the national costs, because we are really on top of costs. biomedical research endeavour. In the last year or two we will work with our scientists and with the Q101 Stephen Mosley: In terms of your role, do you Universities of Birmingham, Glasgow, Oxford or see yourself as being accountable to the four partners wherever and try and place our group leaders in their or do you think the Government has a role and that last year or two with some of our resources, even with cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 23
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper equipment and so on, so they can inhabit the rest of Q106 Gavin Barwell: What is the current estimate the country. and what degree of confidence do you attach to that That policy and way of operating leads us to be estimate? constantly recruiting. That reinvigorates the entire Sir Paul Nurse: We have £100 million, which is the institute and re-sets the strategic direction in response core-funded costs that come from the partners. What to needs. I am emphasising all of that because the perhaps was not made clear to the Committee is that strategy of what you do is very much a fluid thing the institutes already earn extra money outside of that that depends on the brilliance of the people you hire with response-mode funding. It is somewhat higher in interacting with the management. That is a shortened the Lincoln’s Inn Fields’ and Clare Hall institutes than version of it. As I said, there is a longer version. it is in Mill Hill, but that pushes the total running up from that. We are probably in the order of £115 Q103 Stephen Mosley: That is fantastic. But, million anyway at this point. You have to understand practically, you, or someone within your organisation, that this is four or five years’ away, so I cannot give are going to have to make some sort of decision. You complete guarantee to those figures. We will probably are going into a central London site. We heard last be able to push that envelope a little more. We may week that it is a fairly constrained site. You are filling have other partners. We are looking for collaborations the entire space, so there is not going to be the room and co-operation with others. All of this is likely to for future expansion. At some point, someone is going generate some form of income. But this £100 million to have to sit down, maybe at your level or slightly is crucial because that is core funding and it is the below it, and say, “This is what we have got to focus level from which you can operate. Once you have that on”, or “We haven’t got room for this project here.” in place, the rest is not so difficult to attract. Who will be making those decisions and how will I am not complacent at all. I worry about these things. they be made? But, at this stage of a project, I would say it is looking Sir Paul Nurse: Ultimately, that is my responsibility. very good. Maybe I have not made the position clear. We need to get brilliant people into the centre and interact with Q107 Gavin Barwell: You say that a business plan them to find out these decisions. How is that going to was signed off by BIS for the Government? work? I have been running research institutes for Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. nearly 25 years, so this is my bread and butter. This is what I do. You do it by getting brilliant people in Q108 Gavin Barwell: Did the business plan set out and then you talk with them in a very fluid in detail how that operating cost figure was calculated environment. Ultimately, if, again, the question is and, if it did, would it be possible for the Committee about who makes the final decisions, that will be the to see a copy of the business plan submission? directorate. That is absolutely true. But you only do John Cooper: I think the business plan used the same that by working extremely well and closely with the estimate for operating costs that we have just given very high-quality people you have working with you. you. It did not set it out in a great deal of detail. We, in UKCMRI, have given a great deal of attention, as Q104 Gavin Barwell: I will be very quick, you would expect, to the build up of the operational Chairman, on picking up a point on Stephen’s costs. The MRC, essentially, used that estimate and in question. Then I am going to ask about operational their business case they stated that their level of and running costs. funding would be the same as they were currently On the point about the contingency for inflation, what funding to Mill Hill, or as they would expect to fund is the assumption you have made of the inflation Mill Hill over the next five years. forecasts over the next few years? John Cooper: We put together our inflation budget a Q109 Gavin Barwell: Would it be possible to see a year to 18 months ago. We made an assumption about copy of the business case? the rate of inflation, which is currently being borne John Cooper: I am not sure how confidential that is out by experience in terms of consumer price inflation. to BIS. We can ask. Last week John Savill said that Again, there are some commercially sensitive aspects he would talk to BIS about the approval letter as well. of that, so I would rather not quote precise numbers. I do not know whether you have received that yet. We took a conservative view, which has not yet fed through into construction costs, but we took the view Q110 Gavin Barwell: Were there any conditions that the impact probably would, it certainly might. attached to the Government’s approval of the business Therefore, we took a pretty high figure. You will find case that caused you any issues in terms of difficulties on many other projects that costs consultants have or a potential increase in costs in order to meet the been using lower numbers. We have not. conditions that the Government attached? John Cooper: There were conditions attached—that is Q105 Gavin Barwell: I am going to ask you some the answer to the first question—as you would expect, questions about operational costs. All partners in their although it was a very positive letter. It essentially submissions to this Committee estimated the running gave the MRC the freedom to get on with the job as cost to be approximately £100 million a year. Sir Paul, required. The answer to your second question is that a little earlier you used a figure of above £100 million. none of those conditions have given me, in my role Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. of having to deliver this, any concerns. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Ev 24 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper
Q111 Gavin Barwell: Coming back to how those very different from what we have in the United States. running costs are funded, and again, Sir Paul, you There is quite a range of practice. We need to have touched on this a little earlier, when Stephen was that discussion. We haven’t had it yet, so I can’t asking you primarily about the building costs, you answer it. But it is an important point and it is one said that about 50% would come from non- that we will develop in consultation with staff in the government sources and then, a little later, you said coming months and years. that you were pretty confident you were close to having a solution as to how that £100 million would Q115 Graham Stringer: When would you expect to be met. Could you say a little more about that? come to a conclusion on that issue? Sir Paul Nurse: I can say a little more about that, Sir Paul Nurse: We have a lot of issues to do with because it was 50% of the capital costs for the staff. We have a merger going on which is very building that came from Government sources. It is in complicated. We have terms and conditions issues, fact a lower percentage for the operational cost. This and that will also involve IP. It will all be part of is back-of-the-envelope stuff, so please be aware of those sorts of discussions which have a significant HR that. Of that £100 million, £40 million-ish—£42 element but also a business element for the institute. million or something of that sort—is from UKCMRI has only been in existence for a few weeks Government through the MRC and an approximately and we have even yet to start any formal consultation similar sum is coming from Cancer Research UK. over these issues. But we should see progress in these Both of those sums, I want to emphasise, are already areas within the next 12 months. identified and being used to run the present institutes. This is not new money. It is money that is already Q116 Graham Stringer: They will be part of your there. It is important to know that. Further money reporting and updating to this Committee. comes from the Wellcome Trust and University Sir Paul Nurse: Correct. We can report them, yes. College London, and that gets us up to the £100 million. That is the hopper into which the core Q117 Graham Stringer: Let me move on to the funding goes and which then funds the institute in a main point that I would like to ask. I am ambivalent core-funded way. about this project. I don’t want to be. I am very excited. We have one of our most distinguished Q112 Gavin Barwell: I come to my final question. scientists working back in this country, and that is As I understand it, intellectual property rights will rest good. This is potentially a great research centre. On with UKCMRI? the other hand, I also have this feeling that the great Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. and the good of London—the President of UCL and the people who run charities—have got together and Q113 Gavin Barwell: Will that generate income? In said, “We’ll plonk this research institute in the middle terms of the business model, is that expected to of London”. The rest of the country hasn’t really been generate income and, if so, do you have any indication thought about and there has been quite a lot of reverse at all of how much you would budget for that? engineering, post rationalisation, and comments about, John Cooper: In the business model we have not “This is the best site for it.” Can you put my doubts assumed any income from IP. We do not rely on IP at ease on that? income to fund the research of the institute. Any Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. I will take this one because you income that we get will be ploughed back into funding are really not right. The concept of this institute did research at the institute. not come from the four CEOs. It just didn’t. I have Sir Paul Nurse: Can I say something about IP? I indicated that I was already thinking about this would like to re-think about this in the coming year concept 10 years ago. I used to run the institute here or two because most universities treat IP as something in central London, at Lincoln’s Inn, a decade or 15 that is going to be a golden cash cow. First, that is years ago. One of the things that really worried me very unlikely. Very few institutions get these mega was stand-alone institutes that did not interact with amounts. I would see this institute as supporting, as I the rest of the country and the rest of the academic said, the public ventures of the NHS and also not-for- endeavour. You will see in our vision, right at the top, profits. I believe that the IP issue should be used more it says: “This will support the entire biomedical to promote those developments than simply seeing it research endeavour throughout the country.” I say that as a source of income. I know it is a somewhat every time because this is one of several things that different way of thinking about this, and I have not could be very different from the past. worked it out, but it may do more for the country if How would it do that? That is why the central London we think of it in that way than simply as a source of position is absolutely crucial, because you could not income; in other words, a source of development put such a place anywhere else in the country for it to rather than a source of income. work. You need that because of the good transport. You can get to 80% of the population within two Q114 Graham Stringer: Where will the line be hours by train. You can’t even do that from Mill Hill between the ownership of the intellectual property because you have got the extra hour to get out there. rights as between the individual scientist or scientists and the institute? Q118 Chair: You can do it from Manchester. Sir Paul Nurse: We haven’t bottomed that out. There Sir Paul Nurse: If you put it in Manchester or is pre-existing practice which differs somewhat Liverpool, for example, it would already be seen as between the MRC and CRUK and, I have to say, is regional. It is difficult, but if it is in London, it can cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 25
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper serve that national role. I really want to emphasise the elsewhere in the country but it is just the sheer scale national role that it plays, which it does in the of it in London. London is now the most ethnically following way. First of all, remember what I said diverse city in the world and it gives you the right about the career structure. We will get the best coming patient base to do this as well. It is incredibly in because people like to come to London. It is a place important to realise that we must get UKCMRI up, that the rest of the world thinks about as a place to running and succeeding in these areas to attract the live and work. If you are a 25-year-old, it is an industry and so on, first of all, to stay in this country exciting place to come, so that means we can attract and, secondly, to bring new industries in to create a people. really good environment for biotechs to grow and We want them to put down roots. I have said, thrive here. facetiously, that we want them to fall in love and stay here. It is part of the role of trying to keep them here. Q120 Graham Stringer: Thank you. That answers Then we will work with other institutions throughout the point about location. If the project is as successful the country to help place them. After 20 or 30 years, as you believe it will be, is the site big enough? It if this concept works, we will end up with a network can’t really expand, can it? of individuals working in different parts of the Sir Paul Nurse: No. The site is quite constrained but country— there are a couple of points to say about that. You need a certain size for critical mass, but you also need Q119 Graham Stringer: Would that be a formal a size that you can actually run as a single unit. We process or is this something you believe in and, are getting near the limit of the maximum size that because of your personal standing in the science you can run. I don’t think we could run in the rather community, you can make happen? intimate way that would work well with a much Sir Paul Nurse: I would like to see a formal process. bigger size, therefore, needing a bigger site. We have consulted widely. We have had two major Having said that, we will have some facilities out at consultations with universities and medical schools Clare Hall. Our animal facilities, in part, will be there, throughout the country and we have had a so there may be other opportunities out of town for significantly positive response—I should emphasise certain support functions. That is something we that—from right up in Scotland and the regions that haven’t yet absolutely made decisions about. Also, we are interested in working with us. will have the ability to collaborate. Remember that I would like to see a formal process because how I this is a collaborative venture. You increase your imagine it is along the following lines. In the last year critical mass by collaborations not only in London and or two of a person’s time in the institute they will with the local hospitals but also throughout the have their equipment and their group. They are then country. I think that those two factors mean it will be rather vulnerable when they move. Let’s say they big enough. move to Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or Glasgow. If we are working as part of the biomedical Q121 Graham Stringer: I have had put in front of research endeavour rather than just as a stand-alone me the document you sent to the Camden planning institute, we can work with them and say, “You can committee on community involvement, which shows take the equipment that you have been working with that there were 81 contacts between you and the local for three, four or five years as a gift, as a starter. We community. Yet we had representatives from the local will give you a year’s running money so that you can community before us last week and, to put it simply, get going in the University of Newcastle”, and they they were dissatisfied with the level of involvement will get off to a flying start. This is my idea, it is not and communication there has been. What is your something we have bottomed out. This way of response to their comments? operating has never been tried anywhere in the world, John Cooper: I was disappointed to hear their but it will be a way of seeding individuals into the comments because I am proud of the community whole of the country. consultation process that we carried out. It is The reason why, Graham, I am emphasising it is that summarised in the document that went in with the this is not something plonked in the centre of London. planning application. Up to the date of the planning This has been really carefully thought about as committee, we attended or organised more than 90 something supporting the whole endeavour. It is novel consultation events. We talked to over 800 people. We and people don’t fully understand it, but they will had 200 people more through our on-site exhibition. I once we have got out there and talked enough to am also proud of the changes that we made as a result people. I think it will be very positive for the whole of that consultation. We made 11 significant changes endeavour. I really do. to the design of the building, recognising points that Sir David Cooksey: May I just add something to that? people had made to us during the course of the Earlier we were discussing this country’s inadequacy consultations. So I was disappointed by their in terms of translating basic research discoveries into comments. good clinical practice for the benefit of patients and There were some factual inaccuracies in what you the economy. The great thing about the site for were told last week, but I don’t really want to go into UKCMRI is that its access to the clinical development that. We put a lot of effort into consultation, and we that would need to take place in some of the world’s will continue to put a lot of effort into it. Three leading hospitals, all within or very nearly within community groups are going to be set up. One is walking distance, is a very important part of the focused on construction liaison, to make sure we continuation. This is something that can happen manage that properly to the satisfaction of the local cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Ev 26 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper community. The second is to help us work up the question. The founding of a new institute like this design for the Living Centre, which is a really exciting allows you to think about exactly the issues that you opportunity, again contrary to what you were led to are talking about. We touched upon this. I talk about believe last week. The third one will be a general and the NHS and the amazing resource that it could be if ongoing community liaison group, where we will be we looked at it not simply as care delivery but as a quite open with people about what we are doing and research tool. I don’t think we have got to grips with we will be quite open to listen to their concerns. I that. It is a very interesting possibility that think we did a good job of community consultation. I UKCMRI—hopefully, we will rename it to something am disappointed that St Pancras and Somers Town we can actually say soon—will be able to play a Planning Action group were not happy. We will catalytic role in that. continue to try to reach out to the community, both The word I think of a lot when trying to touch upon formally and informally. We made a lot of changes to this is “permeability”. We need greater permeability the design of the building and we incorporated many between the different sectors. We have the research things in our section 106 agreement which responded scientists, like me, we have instruments for care to concerns that were raised with us. We have a very delivery, like the NHS, we have the for-profits sector, good record on community consultation, which is all pharma and so on, but quite often these are stand set out in that document. It was described by officers alone. I am a great believer in new things coming of Camden Council on a couple of occasions last year about when people talk and collaborate. We need as an exemplary process. permeability. So we need a culture in the institute that will be different, where we value that permeability, Q122 Roger Williams: Your answers have been so we value trying to work with the NHS to improve full and comprehensive you have already covered health and we value working with the not-for-profit quite a lot of the ground that I wanted to talk about. sector to generate jobs and income for the country. Sir Paul, you said you were thinking about this I don’t want to say that we have all the solutions but approximately 10 years ago? we are aware that this is a significant problem which Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. you have raised and we have to tackle it in new ways. We tend to beat ourselves up in this country about Q123 Roger Williams: Sir David, in the report that how bad we are at this. I have just spent seven years you produced at the end of 2006, was this facility part in the US, which we all think does it wonderfully. of the vision you had for maintaining the UK as a They do not. They also struggle with bureaucracy in good place to carry on health research? health delivery. They also struggle with not being able Sir David Cooksey: Undoubtedly. When I produced to raise money although they tend to be more that report, which was essentially looking at funding adventurous with their venture capital, I have to say. mechanisms to begin with but then strayed, I have to It is a problem across the world. We can learn from admit, into talking about improving translation in this different experiences across the world, but you need country and also about the whole process of approving to do something new to break out of the railway tracks new drugs, because, as I said earlier, that was getting to be able to do that. more and more expensive, I did point the way at that Sir David Cooksey: Could I add one thing? There has time to try to bring all these things together and have been an implied criticism of the national health an exemplary institution to show that it could be done service not responding fast enough and so on. While very well in this country. As far as I am concerned, that is true, a lot of progress has been made since the the reason why I am involved now is that the initial 2006 report that I wrote. There is a determination to efforts, which pre-dated my 2006 report, to bring do more. The trouble is we haven’t got the delivery NIMR to the Temperance Hospital site in Hampstead yet and the rest of the world is moving on. There is a Road would not have fulfilled what we were trying to great deal of competition in the far east and from the achieve. I believe that this is exactly what we need to east European countries in the areas of clinical trials do. With the right leadership, initiatives and outreach and so on. We need to encourage the NHS to move into both the clinical community and the commercial faster down a track that it is already determined to community, it can fulfil everything that was required move down. There are quite a lot of positives. in that report. Q125 Roger Williams: The issue I was going to Q124 Roger Williams: A strong theme running finish on as far as this particular part is concerned is through the whole project is one of partnership, but the translation of the science into delivery. What has that doesn’t mean that there is a considerable come out of this evidence session is how you engage commitment of public money in the whole effort. One with the NHS. I come from out in the sticks where we of the criticisms has always been that, for all the hear of all the great teaching hospitals in London, yet excellence and brilliance of the work done in Britain, you are telling me you have difficulty with clinical we don’t get a reward in terms outcomes regarding trials. Who is going to break that logjam? How are health, the economy and social benefits. How is this we going to get that going again? project going to change that and give it a better Sir David Cooksey: A lot of it has been about emphasis? incentives. All the incentives in the health service Sir Paul Nurse: You are right to ask this question have been about improving clinical delivery, not because society funds science for the public good. We thinking about the future. A great deal of effort has have to be realistic. There is a long time scale with been going in from certain people in the leadership of these things. I emphasised that in answering an earlier the health service to move that agenda forward in the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 27
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper clinical development area as well. I hope that is going John Cooper: As you would expect, we have had a to bear fruit. At least with UKCMRI one has an very thorough health and safety risk assessment of engine to help that happen. That is really what we are every single room in this building. Any issues that aiming at. have come up have been incorporated in the design. Likewise, we have carried out a security risk Q126 Roger Williams: Moving on to something assessment of all vulnerable areas of the building, and more parochial, a big issue for the people living in those have been incorporated in the design. We have that area is the safety and security of the taken great care to get this right. establishment. You can imagine the fears that arise. Historically, Imperial College had two prosecutions. Q130 Stephen Metcalfe: I am very conscious of the Who is going to be the one person responsible for this, time but I just want to recap on a couple of points. Sir the one who is going to put their hand up? Paul, in your interview in The Times in April 2010 Sir Paul Nurse: That’s me again. I am ultimately you talked about an elitist approach to science. I think responsible for that. What can I say? I can only say you said to us this morning that that requires gathering that I have run institutes for a long time and had no 100 to 150 leading minds together and hot-housing major problem. Furthermore, the two founding them, in effect, and supporting them. Is that how you institutes have run for a long time with no significant imagine this institute to work? I believe that is what problems that I am aware of, so there is a good you said. history. The attention to security and containment in Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. What I was thinking of in that the design of the building and the thinking about it interview was an extension of the Royal Society has been exemplary. The building will have level 3 research professorship notionally being across all the biohazard containment, and there are already about a sciences, because in some ways biomedicine is quite hundred facilities like that in London. There is nothing well supported. I am wearing my Royal Society hat different about that. I understand that local residents now. Physics, chemistry, maths and so on bothers me are concerned, but if that was not allowed to go ahead, as well, but the principle is the same. Things really you would close nearly every hospital in London. move with brilliant individuals and brilliant individuals working together. That is the concept here Q127 Roger Williams: As I understand it, and I and it was the concept I was talking about. don’t know if “observatory” is the right word, the centre will be taking samples of the influenza virus, Q131 Stephen Metcalfe: And you see that working for instance, from across the world to type them and across other disciplines? to develop the necessary vaccines. You don’t know Sir Paul Nurse: I do, yes. what sort of influenza virus could be there. It could be much more dangerous than the swine flu virus that Q132 Stephen Metcalfe: You have also talked quite we have experienced. a lot about critical mass this morning. I think that Sir Paul Nurse: We operate at what is called includes the people, but you are also saying it includes biohazard level 3 for organisms. That is the level at the location in central London? which we operate. There is an extra level above that, Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. which is biohazard level 4. We won’t be using that. If, in the future, there was interest in that level of Q133 Stephen Metcalfe: We heard from Natalie containment, we would do that on another site in Bennett last week, who is the leader of the protest collaboration with others. group. In today’s modern world with rapid communications, digital video-conferencing, the email Q128 Roger Williams: This is the very last issue on and the internet, is it not an old-fashioned approach to that. We were told last week that there are going to be physically put people together? We recently visited experiments on live animals taking place. We were CERN which is a huge site, spread out. They have got told that will involve rodents. Does that mean that at four experiments, but they all work happily together any time it would exclude, for instance, because of the connections. How much physical experimentation on primates or other species? movement will there be that requires it to be on this Sir Paul Nurse: Yes, it does exclude work on site? primates. We will work mostly on rodents, primarily Sir Paul Nurse: There is no doubt that the internet, mice. We have about 99% mice. There are some rats. social networking and so on does alter the way that There are very few other vertebrates, but no primates, we do things, but it is absolutely not old-fashioned to no dogs, no cats. We have fish and flies. I work on mix people together. In fact, the old-fashioned way yeast, as it happens, and nobody gets terribly excited was to separate them into silos and departments which about that. Essentially, it’s a mouse house. then became mini fortresses. This is a new idea. We will not be departmentalised here. We will mix people Q129 Roger Williams: And there are air locks, and from very different disciplines in the same building. your drains are sound? We will not have a structure that is based on Sir Paul Nurse: There is all that stuff. It will be a discipline. It will be a structure which is much more state-of-the-art facility. Some of the animals—and I anarchic, in some respects, where it will be driven by did, briefly, mention this—will be off site. Some of the individuals themselves. It is not old-fashioned. It the mice will be in Clare Hall, which is near Potters is a completely new way of working. The interactions Bar. It is split, two-thirds central, one-third at Clare and close contact in central London which allows you Hall. to access those disciplines are impossible on a distant cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o002_CM_S&T 110216 UKCMRI HC 727-ii FINAL.xml
Ev 28 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
16 February 2011 Sir Paul Nurse, Sir David Cooksey and John Cooper site such as Mill Hill. Physicists, chemists, engineers, The contacts that David indicated were being close to computing engineers and so on will all be either London hospitals—the biggest patient resource in the within walking distance or a short distance on public country. Again, if you are an hour or an hour and a transport. That is quite difficult if you are in a more half away, that is not the same sort of contact. isolated site. So it is a different and new way of The final point, which I have found crucial, is that we working. will have about 250 graduate students and about 500 postdoctoral workers, that is, the age range 21 to 34. Q134 Stephen Metcalfe: Coming back to Mill Hill, We have to recruit 150 or 200 of those each year just would some of the advantages of Mill Hill, that is, the to keep it going. They like central London. I tell you, scope, the scale, the size of the site and the ability not they don’t like the suburbs. Mill Hill isn’t a bad place to find such a complex construction solution, not at to live, but they like central London. It’s just how it any point outweigh the central London site, in that is. Just like I lived and worked in New York, and you might get more for your money? Finally, do you that is very attractive, too. I am very bothered about not, at Mill Hill, have level 4 biohazard clearance? attracting the best in the world and they won’t go to Sir Paul Nurse: Yes. certain places. But they will go to central London. That is just a fact of life. Q135 Stephen Metcalfe: You would be able to keep Chair: We note that you regard places like Cambridge that there and then you would have the whole scope and Oxford as suburbs. for research? Sir Paul Nurse: They do have dreaming spires and Sir Paul Nurse: The answer is no. Mill Hill has done high tables, I know. excellent work but it is an isolated site. It does not Chair: Keep digging. There is a very strong north- have the advantages of a central London site which west contingent on this Committee, Sir Paul. has great communications with the rest of the world Sir Paul Nurse: Manchester has done very well and and which communicates with a range of subjects. We got two Nobel Prizes. Good for you. have not touched upon interdisciplinarity and Chair: They don’t come two a penny, as you know. multidisciplinarity, but, of course, a critical mass Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your evidence. allows you to take a multi and interdisciplinary It has been extremely helpful. We will be continuing approach, and also to be able to have contact with to look very closely at this matter in due course. these other disciplines in universities and so on which are nearby. That is difficult in the two founding institutes we have, which tend to be more stand alone. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o003_CM_S&T 110302 UKCMRI HC 727-iii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 29
Wednesday 2 March 2011
Members present: Andrew Miller (Chair)
Gavin Barwell Stephen Mosley Stephen McPartland Pamela Nash Stephen Metcalfe Graham Stringer ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, and Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health, gave evidence.
Chair: Minister, thank you for joining the Minister of process into two stages. There is a first round of State for Universities and Science for this session. I clearing the site and the basement. There is a second need, formally, to ask colleagues for declarations of round of erecting the building. The business case interests at the start of this meeting. includes assumptions about how much we might have Gavin Barwell: Chairman, I took part in the Royal to pay in the contract for the second round, which is Society Pairing Scheme this year. I was paired with Dr still being negotiated, so you do not want to reveal Emily Nurse from University College London, who is your hand. There were also some internal assessments the daughter of Sir Paul Nurse, who is the chief about the quality of individual bids from companies. executive and director of the UKCMRI. Apart from some of those commercially sensitive features, as I hope the Committee will understand, we Q136 Chair: Ministers, you both attended the are very happy to share with the Committee versions signing of the Joint Venture Agreement in November of the business case. of last year. Why has the Government been so visible in its support for the UKCMRI? Q140 Chair: We understand commercial sensitivities Mr Willetts: Because it is perhaps the most significant and anything you provide will be treated development in British biomedical science for a appropriately. Did the Government attach any generation. I very much hope it is going to be a conditions to the approval? fantastic facility. As well as that, the model of co- Mr Willetts: One of the key conditions was that all operation behind it, with these four different processes associated with the planning permission are organisations—the MRC joined with Cancer Research completed. That is the most crucial feature. That UK, University College London and the Wellcome seems to be proceeding very well. Trust—is a very exciting model for the future. Q141 Chair: Has the provision of social housing on Q137 Chair: We can see that. Were you convinced the disused National Temperance Hospital site been of the business case? sacrificed in order to get a better land receipt? Mr Willetts: The business case has been scrutinised Mr Willetts: I know there are some delicacies about several times by the Office of Government the exact location of the site. I think that the partners Commerce. We looked at it again with a very beady all took the view that the development was in the right eye when the new Government came in and the place. The actual disposal of the National Temperance Treasury, rightly, asked us to review all the capital Hospital site is a matter for the MRC and it is a commitments. That was done again over the summer. commercial decision for the MRC as to whom the Every time, it has withstood the most careful scrutiny land is sold to. Of course, the use of the land for social as a very valuable project. housing or whatever purpose is a matter for local authorities through their planning powers. Q138 Chair: You have documented the business case inside the BIS or jointly across Government Q142 Chair: The local MP, who knows his patch as Departments. well as anyone does—as well as you know your own, Mr Willetts: Yes. of course, as a former Health Minister as well—at an early stage expressed doubts over the suitability of Q139 Chair: Is that a hard copy to which we can the Temperance site. He was of the clear opinion that have access? commitments were given that, “We will pull off that Mr Willetts: Yes. If there is more background site and go to the St Pancras site in exchange for the material, my principle is that the Committees have a development of better social housing on the right to all this material. The only thing I would say Temperance site.” is that in some areas, if you are specifically thinking Mr Willetts: This happened under the previous of the MRC business case, there is some commercially Government. I am not aware of what undertakings sensitive information. Perhaps it might help the were given, if any. My advice is that it is now a matter Committee if I indicated the areas where there would for the MRC to make their disposal. The proceeds will be commercial sensitivities. go to the UKCMRI project, and any use of the site is One of the issues is that, in order to run the project subject to the usual local authority planning cost-effectively, we have split up the contracting procedures. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o003_CM_S&T 110302 UKCMRI HC 727-iii FINAL.xml
Ev 30 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
2 March 2011 Rt Hon David Willetts MP and Earl Howe
Q143 Chair: But you would expect them to maintain the £220 million found for this scheme came from the any commitments given to the local community? health budgets in totality and not from other places? Mr Willetts: I don’t know what commitments were Earl Howe: We are very comfortable with this level made and in what terms. I am afraid that that is a of contribution for a number of reasons. First of all, matter that you would have to ask specifically the in principle, we do see this project as very much in MRC when they bought it. the interests of the NHS and patients over the longer term. There are a number of particular factors that led Q144 Graham Stringer: This project is on a site us to that conclusion, not the least of which is the next to a project that became a symbol for emphasis that the centre will place on translational overrunning on time and budget. How confident are research—in other words, bench to bedside-type you that this project will be brought in on time and research—that is clearly in the direct interests of on budget? patients. Mr Willetts: We are very aware of the history of cost overruns; you are quite right, Mr Stringer. All I can Q148 Graham Stringer: How will the Government say is that the Office of Government Commerce has be represented on the final board, when the project is reviewed it on several occasions. The most recent up and running? reviews were in July 2010 and again in January 2011. Mr Willetts: That will be through the MRC, as I said. It was given a Delivery Confidence Assessment of We are putting in through the MRC slightly under one Amber-Green. That is regarded as a good ranking, half of the total cost. The MRC is the crucial agent given that it is still more than four years from the for the Government in this project. expected delivery date. We will have an observer from BIS on the UKCMRI construction project board. As I Q149 Stephen Metcalfe: Mr Willetts, you touched mentioned to the Committee a moment ago, the two- upon this matter earlier and said that the location of stage approach to procurement is also supposed to the centre might be an issue. I also have a big issue make it particularly cost-effective. We have all agreed, with the overall cost of the bricks and mortar side of as the four partners, an overall cost envelope. So we this project, which is the best part, including fees and are absolutely doing our best to make sure that we land, etcetera, of two thirds of £1 billion. I see the eliminate cost overruns. location and the cost as inextricably linked. Are you absolutely satisfied that the site at St Pancras is the best location for a project of this magnitude and Q145 Graham Stringer: Two questions follow from importance? Have you explored other sites yourself? that. Can you assure this Committee that, if there are Have you visited, for example, the site at Mill Hill, overruns, because stuff happens on these large which is considerably bigger and has been there for a projects, that the taxpayer will not pick up that tab? long time? Have you judged whether that is fit for Can you also expand on the role of the BIS observer? purpose or fit for expansion? Mr Willetts: On the action we would take, all four Mr Willetts: I personally have not visited Mill Hill. partners have agreed a very clear financial envelope All I can tell you is the very strong view of all four and I am assured that this two-stage contracting partners. There is a long history, as you have already process helps deliver costing within that envelope. We touched on it, going way back before this have set a very clear limit on our expenditure here. Government, of debating the location. Obviously, as The role of the observer, and it is an observer on the an incoming Minister one does ask the partners about construction project board, is to ensure that we do stay being in central London, because I absolutely in close touch with the project and get the information understand your line of questioning, Mr Metcalfe. that we need on the progress of the project. It means They do all say that it is the best site for collaborative that there is an opportunity for us to keep in very close research. They like the fact that it is so close to touch with the partners, but our observer does not leading hospitals, such as Great Ormond Street and have formal voting rights because, although Earl University College Hospital. They like the very strong Howe and I were at the ceremony you referred to transport links. They have been emphatic in saying earlier, we are not one of the four partners. It would that that location is very important in terms of not be right for the observer to have voting rights, but attracting international talent. Remember, we are our observer will be able to keep us in very close hoping that researchers from around the world will touch with what is going on. want to come and work there.
Q146 Graham Stringer: I do not think you said in Q150 Chair: That may be the view of the great and that answer that the taxpayer won’t pick up the cost if the good that you have consulted. it goes over budget. Will they or won’t they? Mr Willetts: I count you as a member of the great and Mr Willetts: We have set a financial envelope along the good, Chairman. with the other partners for the total cost of this project. It must not exceed that envelope, there is no funding Q151 Chair: Earl Howe, have you discussed this from the taxpayer to pay for anything in excess of that directly with employees, the key researchers, the envelope, and it is very important that this project people at Mill Hill? does not overrun. Earl Howe: Not the people at Mill Hill because that is not under my jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of Q147 Graham Stringer: That is a lot clearer but the MRC. But I have discussed the location in broad things do go wrong. Earl Howe, are you happy that terms in the sense that the location is one that is ideal cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o003_CM_S&T 110302 UKCMRI HC 727-iii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 31
2 March 2011 Rt Hon David Willetts MP and Earl Howe for several of our major London teaching hospitals. Q155 Stephen Metcalfe: My final question on this is What we will see happening is a two-way engagement that we talked earlier about the golden triangle, about between UKCMRI and centres such as University concentrating research into a very tight and small area. College Hospital, King’s and Imperial, the major Do you think that by locating the centre in the centre London centres for research, with a two-way flow of of London that we are compacting that? We are ideas, with clinicians on the ground identifying compounding that problem and focusing, again, a lot clinical problems which need to be solved, scientists of our research into the golden triangle. Do you see in the centre picking up those pointers and we hope a that as a problem for the wider UK research base? much quicker flow of ideas coming through to benefit Mr Willetts: The fact is that there is a concentration patients. The location of the building, I am clear, is of of leading hospitals and academic institutions, such as major advantage in that sense. University College, located nearby, which is one of our globally ranked universities. That does mean that Q152 Stephen Metcalfe: Do you think it is worth London and the golden triangle to which you referred paying potentially considerably more than you might does tend to attract research. As I said earlier to the be able to construct a similar centre for, with all the Committee, even if some of that most upstream benefits that you are describing, other than it being medical research happens in a small number of nine miles from St Pancras out at Mill Hill? You talk clusters, it does not follow that there are not other about all this collaborative working. We recently stages in the life sciences process that will be visited CERN, where there are 12,000 scientists happening all across the country. I believe we can working over a site that is quite large. There is a 27 achieve that, including the location of CROs. km tunnel. That is where the world wide web was Earl Howe: I think it is worth adding that Sir Paul invented so that scientists could collaborate over Nurse envisages that the career structure available in distance. I want to make sure that the benefits in a UKCMRI will be such that we will have brilliant project that was devised and conceived in better young researchers training and becoming established financial times is still the best use of money from all at the centre and then dispersing around the country, the partners now, and that there is not a better way taking their expertise with them. of using that money, in the potential saving on the Chair: We want to push you on that a little more. construction costs, in providing better research and better outcomes for, after all, patients. Q156 Stephen Mosley: Before I do that, Sir Paul Earl Howe: I need to be clear that the Department of Nurse has recently made some comments that were Health has not been in the lead on the decision of the slightly negative towards the Government’s science location. We were asked to make a contribution to the policy. In an interview with Research Fortnight he capital costs once the decision on the location had gave an indication that he had some concern that been made. The question for us was, was this good Government cuts may lead to a reduction in the value for the Department of Health as well as for the research infrastructure. With the Government taxpayer? We were clear that it was an investment spending so much money and the MRC putting so with which we were comfortable and that this was a much money into this particular project—you have worthwhile cross-Government venture. probably heard from around the table that the cost of it is causing some concern to our Committee—is there Q153 Stephen Metcalfe: Do you know what the a risk that it might lead to reductions in other research future of Mill Hill will be once the funding that is budgets or affect other projects in the UK? supporting the research moves to the UKCMRI? Mr Willetts: As I have said, we have an MRC budget Mr Willetts: I do not know. I believe that the that has ended up, not least because of its patent UKCMRI essentially replaces the facilities at Mill income, protected in real terms, and this Department Hill. The activity is going to shift UKCMRI in its new of Health contribution is incredibly welcome. Based location, so I think Mill Hill will close. on that, the value to the NHS of this further enables us to increase our activity. Q154 Stephen Metcalfe: That begs another question I read what Sir Paul Nurse said and, of course, I have about the location at St Pancras. It is a relatively small good and close contact with Sir Paul. I would cite a site of 3.6 acres. We have heard from previous letter of 22 October from scientists: “We warmly witnesses that there is no room for expansion and that welcome the settlement in the Comprehensive the site is being fully utilised with the centre as it is Spending Review…This is a strong signal from currently proposed. Do you think it is a good idea that government and will boost the confidence of there is no scope for change, development or researchers and investors alike.” One of the expansion on that site? signatories was a certain Sir Paul Nurse. Mr Willetts: We are advised that it is going to be a very large facility—remember, there are going to be Q157 Stephen Mosley: If you also go down the food over 1,000 scientists in there—and that enables you to chain in the scientific community, we were recently in get to the critical mass. That enables you to have a CERN and we were lucky enough while we were place that is big enough for a range of different there to have an hour with a group of young British disciplines and a range of different medical research scientists working at CERN. They perceived that there challenges to be addressed. So that is a very legitimate was a lack of job security in British science, that there question, but we have been assured that it is big were limited career opportunities and that a lack of enough for all the range of activities that are intended investment may lead to a brain drain, effectively, from for it. the UK in the future. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o003_CM_S&T 110302 UKCMRI HC 727-iii FINAL.xml
Ev 32 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
2 March 2011 Rt Hon David Willetts MP and Earl Howe
Are you aware of this problem among the wider dispersed more widely in the NHS over time by virtue scientific community and do you think that by of researchers migrating from London to other centres focusing on big, large-scale projects like the UKCMRI around the country. That is very often a typical pattern we might end up with nice glitzy buildings but that we have seen in the past. Here we will have a without the British scientists to use them and do work centre of excellence in London providing the engine, in them? the motor, for that process. It is an observed fact Mr Willetts: First of all, and the Committee has around the NHS that, where you have a hospital trust pressed me on this before, the capital spend is outside that has exciting work going on at the cutting edge of the ring fence. We are using the £4.6 billion—the ring treatment, you not only attract the best clinicians but fence—to sustain research activity, post-doctoral the standard of care goes up as well. So there is a research and research grants. Sometimes I get the virtuous circle in that sense. opposite line of criticism, “You’re putting all this money into continuing current activity, but you are not Q160 Stephen Mosley: What would you say on the putting enough into the new capital equipment that the elitist point? researchers need.” Earl Howe: I fear I have no view of that. I do not There is a challenge in the career structure here. I am know whether Mr Willetts has. reminded a bit of the problems that the NHS got into Mr Willetts: The pressure is, if anything, to a few years ago with recruiting large numbers of concentrate research funding on the universities that medical students and then realising there were not do best in the research assessment exercise and get going to be enough consultancy places for them all. the highest star rankings. Already it is pretty highly There is a question about the structure of post- concentrated, but, if anything, the pressures are to graduate scientific research and what the legitimate concentrate further. career ambitions of people who are researching at that level are relative to the number of professorial posts Q161 Stephen Mosley: Do you have any plans or available. I do say to the community that taking a few proposals to roll out this model in other sectors of steps back and looking at the career structures for scientific research? young and mid-career researchers and scientists would Mr Willetts: Oddly enough, you could regard this as be something that does bear investigation. It is an a kind of technology innovation centre. It is on a issue. massive scale, way beyond the budget that we have for technology innovation centres. But it is a very Q158 Stephen Mosley: You say there is a question good example of some of the principles behind the and it does bear investigation. Are you going to be TICs that this Committee has been investigating in doing that? that it is a shared facility, a mix of public and private Mr Willetts: We are trying to ensure a proper balance funding, and we hope that a variety of people will of the spending so that, for example, we can continue come in and wish to use it. Of course, there is not a to support post-doctoral researchers. One reason why direct business involvement because it is a bit more we have slightly increased the funding for the Royal upstream. Society and the British Academy is that they have I would be very keen for the Government, through good long-term contracts for blue-skies research its research councils, to have more of these kinds of activity, which they are very good at identifying.1 partnerships. Wellcome is an excellent partner in the Yes, we are trying to make a practical contribution to Diamond Synchrotron at Harwell where they make a tackling the problem as well. contribution and we make the bulk of the contribution. If there are other places where we can work with Q159 Stephen Mosley: Earl Howe, you did mention charities such as the Wellcome Foundation and Sir Paul Nurse’s view about the funding of brilliant specific academic bodies, yes, I would be up for that. science. He said that science funding should become more elitist. Does the Government share the view that Q162 Gavin Barwell: Chairman, Earl Howe referred science funding should become more elitist? You did earlier on to translational research. The Cooksey mention the model that he is trying to achieve by Review highlighted two gaps in translation. One was bringing a small number of people in initially, creating translating basic research into the development of new a brilliant organisation, creating brilliant scientists and products and treatments, which I guess primarily is an allowing them to permeate among other organisations issue that would lie in Mr Willetts’s sphere of within the UK and bringing new people into the responsibility, and the second was then translating UKCMRI to try and ensure that this brilliance does those treatments into clinical practice, essentially, get absorbed across the entire UK life sciences sector. which clearly falls within Earl Howe’s area of Do you share that model? Do you agree with that? responsibility. Can I ask you both how you think the Earl Howe: The second part of your question is creation of this centre will close those two gaps? perhaps of more relevance to me than the first part. If Mr Willetts: This is where the location issue comes we look at the skills agenda, I look to my colleague in. Some of its researchers will be clinicians. They to my right. What we were mindful of in making the will be clinically trained. They will be people who contribution to this project, among many other factors, have had practical hands- on medical responsibility. It was that the benefits of UKCMRI would indirectly be will have direct links with local clinical centres, such 1 Note by witness: Funding for the British Academy was as University College Hospital and Great Ormond slightly increased: the Royal Society’s settlement was similar Street. We see it as having that direct interaction, as I to that of most Research Councils. said, so overcoming some of the boundaries between cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o003_CM_S&T 110302 UKCMRI HC 727-iii FINAL.xml
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 33
2 March 2011 Rt Hon David Willetts MP and Earl Howe the academic research in teaching hospitals that go concentrated centre of excellence, a project that is right back to the post-war decisions. driven from within the heart of Government, and Earl Howe: The links that are planned between another one that is trying to create a more bottom-up UKCMRI and local clinical centres of excellence will, reform. Is there not a risk of a gap in the middle? How as I indicated earlier, help to define what the priorities are we going to ensure that the flow that Sir Paul are in the research that is undertaken and also provide Nurse wants to see, quite legitimately, actually occurs, a direct route through which clinical applications can reaching into hospitals in all of our constituencies, so be progressed. that right across the country we get access to best If you look at the scientific vision document, it practice? describes some of the diseases that they are going to Earl Howe: This is a challenge now, as I have be investigating in some detail. Cancer will be a indicated. It is not just a challenge for the future. In strong focus, as you might expect; so, too, will the end, it is a combination of the things that I have circulatory conditions, heart disease and stroke, the mentioned. It is having visionary clinical leaders on immune system, the nervous system and so on. These the ground around the health service and it is about are areas of major clinical importance and ones in having a Department with the means at its disposal to which our major London teaching hospitals excel. encourage, promote and publicise innovation, but also having mechanisms within the health service to spread Q163 Gavin Barwell: Earl Howe, clearly there is a that vision. It is the last of those three things that is link between the centre and University College the difficult bit of the equation. Hospital in particular, but how will we ensure that The last Government did a great deal to get this those treatments are rolled out right across the NHS? agenda going under Ara Darzi. We have tried to What is the mechanism for ensuring that the whole of the NHS benefits from this centre? continue many of the initiatives that he started. There Earl Howe: Now we are into an issue that occupies a are, for example, strategy groups that both Mr Willetts lot of time in the Department of Health, which is the and I sit on, that industry representatives and innovation agenda. We see, don’t we, good ideas stakeholders sit on, so that we are aware of their emerging around the NHS? We also have mechanisms problems as regards diffusing innovation throughout in the Department of Health for promoting innovation the system and vice versa. Dialogue with the industry in the health service, but the challenge is, clearly, to in all its forms is very important. Dialogue with the diffuse good ideas more widely. There are a number medical profession is very important. We are of ways in which we are trying to do that. There are extremely alive to this issue and it is one that we will financial incentives, competitions and the Innovation continue to consider. EXPO that is at the ExCel next week. These are ways in which we are trying to disseminate best practice. It Q166 Chair: There is a much broader issue here that is a constant theme of the Department’s work. we may come back to in future inquiries. Obviously, In the end, it has much to do with clinical leadership it is relevant to this particular, much narrower inquiry. and a lot to do with having visionary managers around We have covered a huge amount of ground this the NHS who regard innovation as important. As has morning. One of the issues that you mentioned twice, been said, this is a large investment, but I am clear Mr Willetts, was the technology innovation centres, that this is the very time, at a time of financial and we are hoping to get a response from you on our constraint, when we should not take our foot off the report in the not-too-distant future. One of the things innovation pedal because finding new and better ways we mentioned in that was a recommendation for a of doing things is, in the end, how we are going to more human name. I hope, Earl Howe, that somebody have an affordable health service. can think of a more human name than UKCMRI, which is a dreadful acronym. Q164 Gavin Barwell: You have both acknowledged Earl Howe: There is something in the wind. that it is a significant investment, you both believe it Mr Willetts: I can tell the Committee that a brilliant is the right investment and you are confident that it name has been put forward. An announcement of that will be delivered on time. What plans have you will be made in a few weeks, that I hope the already put in place to measure in a few years’ time Committee will appreciate as being absolutely the whether it does succeed in dealing with these two right name for this centre, and it will be a human translational gaps, essentially? Is some mechanism name. already in place to measure the success? Earl Howe: It is too soon to say before the building has been constructed exactly how either of our two Q167 Chair: For this centre? Departments will monitor progress in the sense that Mr Willetts: For the UKCMRI? you have indicated. It is important to emphasise that Chair: Yes. neither of our two Departments will directly have a Mr Willetts: I know your thoughts on the TICs are seat on the board or be involved in the management, very interesting as well. as I think is appropriate. One of the strengths of Chair: That was because we took a view that spread research in this country has been its arm’s length right across the breadth of science, not just in the relationship with Government. narrow confines of the important parts of particle physics and so on. Q165 Chair: But you do recognise that there is a Thank you very much for your time, Earl Howe and potential problem in that here we have a very David Willetts, especially for the length of time you cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:35] Job: 010167 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/010167/010167_o003_CM_S&T 110302 UKCMRI HC 727-iii FINAL.xml
Ev 34 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
2 March 2011 Rt Hon David Willetts MP and Earl Howe have been here this morning. Obviously, there are a in touch with your Department. Thank you for your number of other key areas on which we want to keep attendance. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 35
Written evidence
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 MP 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 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 £85 million, of which £46.75 million 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? 3.1 As part of the spending review in October 2010, £220 million of funding was announced for the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 36 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
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 £220 million 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 (£42 million per annum).
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
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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 37
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. 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. 1 http://www.ukcmri.ac.uk/scientific-vision cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 38 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
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. 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? 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 39
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. 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 40 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
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 paragraph 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 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 41
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 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. 10 January 2011
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 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 42 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
— 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. 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
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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 43
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; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 44 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
— 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 45
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 Areas UKCMRI will deploy Hostile Vehicle Measures (HVM) at its eastern end. This 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 Fabric The building will be constructed with a robust category B concrete frame to 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 Guarding UKCMRI will have an appropriate security team presence 24 hours a day. 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 Access will be controlled (24 hours a day 365 days a year) through three 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, seven 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; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 46 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
— 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 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 months2 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 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 £85 million, of which £46.75 million 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 2 Reports were provided in July 2008, January 2009, July 2009, January 2010 and August 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 47
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 £220 million 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 £220 million 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. 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 MRC by March 2011 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 48 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
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 £540 million) 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. 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 Strategy3. 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 £42 million. 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. 3 http://www.ukcmri.ac.uk/scientific-vision cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 49
— 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 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 10 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 six 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. 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 £100 million 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 50 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
23. The positive settlement for the MRC in the 2010 Spending Review will enable its overall research spend to be maintained. The £220 million 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. 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 51
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: — UKCMRI is one of the most significant developments in biomedical science for a generation. — 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. — 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. — 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: — There is no successful challenge to the Planning Consent granted by the London Borough of Camden on 16 December 2010. — 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. — 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. — UKCMRI provides a certificate to the MRC that VAT is not payable in respect to the building. — 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. — The MRC obtains the department’s agreement to the schedule of transition costs. — The MRC continues to ensure provision for a BIS representative to attend the UKCMRI Construction Project Board as an observer.
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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 52 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
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 J S, Mills R G, Kohane I S (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
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 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 (b) of 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 £600 million (£220 million directly from public funds) on a building (with a further estimated £100 million 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 53
Written submission 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 1,500 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 1,500 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 1,500 instigate projects which need more space? Research teams, including those representing pharmaceutical companies, will be invited to bid for space and facilities. As these 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 54 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
(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”. (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 1,500 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 (£220 million 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 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 55
(b) On 4 October 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, eg 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 1,500 people, The British Library evacuates 1,000 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.
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, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 56 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
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 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 roblem 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 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 57
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 September 2010 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 1 September. 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. 1,500 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 10 July 2010, 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 22 April 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.”
Supplementary written evidence submitted by St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action (UKCMRI 11a) Please accept the following responses to the hearing of 9 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? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Ev 58 Science and Technology Committee: Evidence
Space UKCMRI 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 9 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
Written evidence submitted by Frankie Biney of SPA (St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action) (UKCMRI 22) For over 20 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% 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [23-05-2011 11:39] Job: 010167 Unit: PG04
Science and Technology Committee: Evidence Ev 59
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
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 05/2011 010167 19585