The MRC Forward Investment Strategy (2003)
The MRC Forward Investment Strategy (FIS) was developed by a Subcommittee established by the MRC Council in October 2002. Its remit, as part of wider Research Councils UK planning, was to develop a forward investment strategy for its major capital investments over the next 10-15 years. The primary focus was on sites where major capital investment decisions are required over the next few years. These are Harwell (Oxford), the National Institute for Medical Research (Mill Hill, London), Hammersmith (London), and Addenbrooke’s (Cambridge).
The FIS report and consultation
The Subcommittee met a number of times and sought input from the Directors at the four sites. Its report set out a framework for optimal research environments for the future. Comments on the report were then invited from the wider scientific community and from other stakeholders. The consultation was designed to gather comments on:
- The scientific and policy context for future developments
- The proposed forward investment strategy in relation to each or any of the four sites
- Issues relevant to other major MRC investments not currently raised in this report.
Find out more by downloading the report
Results of the consultation
Reviewing the responses, the FIS subcommittee and the MRC's Council concluded that there was a need to accelerate further development of a vision for a strong scientific future for the NIMR and to consider and consult on a broader set of options for the size and location of the NIMR than originally proposed by the FIS subcommittee. For this purpose, the MRC established the MRC Task Force on the NIMR.
The responses were subsequently externally and independently analysed, and a draft report of the analysis was considered by the Council at its meeting in July 2003. This was agreed to be a helpful summary, and the independent analysis of FIS consultation responses has now been published.
In relation to the NIMR, the Council noted that the analysis made few new points and repeated some misconceptions most of which had already been corrected by the MRC in Chief Executive’s letter of 21 May 2003
Many responses had suggested that the FIS report had disregarded the last peer review of the NIMR and in particular a statement in the NIMR quinquennial review report that the "paramount importance of preserving the integrity of the Institute was acknowledged". The MRC's Council noted however that this had been taken out of context; the comment was in fact made in the context of discussion about possible alternative management models for the Institute, for example the scope for a rotating directorship on a Max Planck Model*.
The full context is contained within the Overall Summary of the report of a visiting scientific subcommittee to the NIMR in April 2000:
“Sir John Skehel was highly commended on the outstanding overall performance of the Institute over the past 5 years. The future plans provided a very solid basis for believing that productivity would be equally high over the next five years. It was particularly encouraging to see the number of young researchers who were flourishing in the Institute – several of whom were already proving themselves as independent programme leaders.
The “added-value” of the Institute environment was clearly reflected in the number of high-quality integrated programmes involving interactions between different divisions and the sharing of expertise and technologies. The overall cohesion of the Institute was very impressive and the critical role of Sir John in maintaining such a stimulating inter-disciplinary research environment was recognised.
In recognising the unique scientific leadership and management abilities of Sir John Skehel (which it would be extremely difficult to duplicate), there was some discussion about alternative scientific management models for the Institute following his retirement. This included consideration of devolved management models, such as the ‘rotating directorship’ employed in Max Planck Institutes. One potential advantage of such a model would be that it might facilitate the recruitment of senior external scientists, which had historically been difficult for the Institute. However, the paramount importance of preserving the integrity of the Institute was clearly acknowledged. Sir John's view that, in order to preserve morale amongst the Institute staff the process of searching for a new director should be initiated very soon, was noted.”
The Council endorsed the policies and principles articulated in sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the FIS Report. These were intended to be generic, and would inform major investments appraisals in the future. The main principles might or might not all apply in particular circumstances; if any did not apply, this would be fully justified and explained.
The Council also considered and endorsed all the recommendations in the FIS report relating to the Harwell site, the Clinical Sciences Centre, and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology.
Members of the Council noted the concerns which had been expressed by some respondents regarding the process adopted for the FIS consultation in respect of the NIMR. It would be important to reflect on these and learn from them as appropriate.
The Council agreed to disband the FIS Subcommittee.