|
Mill Hill: MPs demand rethink
The long debate about the future of Mill Hill has been “has been an object lesson in how not to handle such a project”, say MPs.
In its latest report (here), on Research Council Institutes, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee says that it is “difficult to see how MRC management can avoid censure” for its lack of communication with staff adding that it was “extremely unhelpful of Professor Blakemore to tell the press that Mill Hill would close whatever happened.”
Professor Blakemore had told the Times Higher Educational Supplement in October last year that the site would close whatever happened and when interviewed by the Committee, he was asked by Dr Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown): “Will you move lock, stock and barrel from Mill Hill?” and answered, “Yes, that is the plan.”
But the committee says that “simple closure of Mill Hill would be unacceptable” and has told the parties to get round the table again: “We recommend that MRC adopt a new more open strategy to regular consultation and communication with staff at Mill Hill. We also recommend that the MRC reconvene the task force, which included staff representatives, to advise them on the way to proceed and to provide a forum for scientific and other interests to be expressed. This approach is essential if alternative arrangements involving either joint use of the NTH site and Mill Hill or the identification of a new site in London become the preferred option.”
The committee expressed concern that the the National Temperance Hospital (NTH) site at 0.35 hectares as compared to 19 hectares at Mill Hill was “is inadequate because of its size.”
Commenting on the report, Peter Cotgreave of CaSE told The Biochemist: “People responsible for distributing science funding have become confused by Government policies that are vague about who is supposed to pay for what. This have left the Research Councils like a circus act trying to balance short-term projects on one hand, longer-term studies on the other, and simultaneously pulling spin-out companies from a hat. It was inevitable that sooner or later, something would go wrong, and it's a great shame that the nation's medical research base had to experience the consequences.”
Asked to comment, Laure Thomas, MRC Senior Press Officer, told The Biochemist: “We will not respond to the S&T Committee’s report until after our Council has had a chance to discuss the business case next week and has looked at the report.”
See previous stories:
10 April 2003 Mill Hill threatened with closure
28 May 2004 The future of NIMR
9 July 2004 NIMR – London or bust?
22 October 2004 MPs to investigate NIMR move
2 December 2004 ‘Colin Blakemore threatened me’ claim at Mill Hill hearing
21 December 2004 Mill Hill - “We are walking into a tragedy here,” says Paul Nurse
9 February 2005 Blakemore "inappropriately forceful" say MPs in NIMR report
27 October 2006 NIMR in new danger as Government refuses funding
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
More top news stories
|
|
search our archive
