The Science and Technology Committee today agrees with, and commends, the scientific vision for the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, but expresses reservations about the project's location. It says the case for the centre's central London location near St Pancras station was not overwhelming and it could have been sited elsewhere. The advantages of co-location with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links, which the Committee accepts play a fundamental role in the centre's vision, 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. On the issue of funding, the Committee's concerns about the project's costs were assuaged by evidence from the Government that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management structure, the committee was told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. The Committee is sympathetic to the local community's concerns about the project, and recognises attempts made by the centre's management to engage with the local community, but says it is saddened that efforts have not been as successful as they might have been. 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 housing, including social housing.

This report, from the Innovation, Universities & Skills Committee, examines the establishment of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, to be located in central London, next to the British Library. This new body was created by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and University College London (UCL) and is to act as a centre for medical research bringing together the various science teams from these institutions. The establishment of UKCMRI though is both an exciting and risky venture, involving an estimated cost of £500 million, including nearly £300m of public funds through the Medical Research Council. The Committee has raised concerns about the financing of the project. At present, the Medical Research Council is to give £260m; Cancer Research UK, £150m; the Wellcome Trust, £100m and UCL, £46m. These figures are all estimates, and the Committee believes that the MRC need to establish an accurate breakdown of the costs involved in the project. Further, the Treasury's appropriation of £92m of the MRC's savings, has necessitated the MRC to apply for funding from The Large Facilities Capital Fund, and casts doubt over the MRC's ability to finance the project. Secondly, the Committee is concerned about the timetable and project management of the scheme, given the requirement of the MRC to apply for additional funding. Timetable challenges could be further acerbated by the construction and project management skills in demand for the 2012 Olympics. Also no planning permission had been gained from the local authority, Camden Borough Council, to use the site for a medical research centre. Finally the Committee is concerned about the science vision for the centre and that there is clear mission for the new institute, along with proper communication with staff over the direction of research programmes and facilities. The Committee expects to receive quarterly updates on the project's development.

The Medical Research Council is a publicly-funded organisation dedicated to improving human health. It supports research across the entire spectrum of medical sciences, in universities and hospitals, in its own units and institutes in the UK and in Africa. The MRC works closely with key stakeholders and research funders - UK health departments, other departments and agencies, the six sister research councils, industry, and the academic and charity sectors - giving a high priority to research that is likely to make a real difference to clinical practice and the health of the population. This annual report describes progress in 2008-09, highlights key awards and partnerships, and outlines plans for the future.

work of the Committee In 2008-09 : First report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, and written Evidence

Possessing the high containment laboratories necessary to tackle existing and emergent infectious diseases of both humans and animals is of the utmost importance to the UK. A leak of Foot and Mouth disease from such a laboratory at Pirbright in 2007 is the most recent demonstration of how devastating infectious disease can be. It is critical that such an incident does not happen again. This Report outlines a number of shortcomings in the way capacity for high containment research is provided and highlights where the Government should take action. Primarily, the Committee concludes that there is a striking lack of co-ordination between organisations who sponsor and run high containment laboratories. No one organisation or Minister has the remit to maintain a strategic overview of capacity and to co-ordinate these laboratories. There is significant potential for collaboration at a more formal level to assess what facilities are available and make best use of them, identifying any gaps. There is also room for more co-ordination and standardisation of the vetting and training of staff working in this area. The report identifies shortcomings in the funding of high containment facilities, particularly for the significant cost of ongoing maintenance. A number of high containment laboratories have been neglected and the funding situation is uncertain. The Government must ensure that dependable funding is provided to maintain such facilities safely. The new regulatory framework to be introduced in the wake of the Pirbright outbreak is a positive step and should provide a framework in which those operating high containment facilities, given sufficient resources, should be able to continue their work to protect the UK from the threat of infectious disease.

Many of the trials taking place today are unregistered and unpublished, meaning that the information that they generate remains invisible to both the scientific community and the public. This undermines public trust, slowing the pace of medical advancement and potentially putting patients at risk. All trials conducted on NHS treatments-and all other trials receiving public funding-should be prospectively registered and their results published in a scientific journal. While the focus should be on implementing this change for future trials, the Government must also do what it can to ensure that historic trials are registered and published, particularly where they have been publically funded. The Government should also take steps to facilitate greater sharing of the raw data generated during a trial in a responsible and controlled way, with the knowledge and consent of patients. The report also draws attention to the recent fall in the number of trials taking place in the UK. It finds that the need for multiple governance approvals from participating NHS organisations remained the biggest barrier to setting up a UK trial, but that lack of public awareness was also a key issue. Recruiting participants can also be a challenge. The report calls on the Government to take its recommendations into account in ongoing discussions regarding the revision of European clinical trials legislation and in its response to the European Medicines Agency's consultation on the release of clinical trial data, which closes at the end of this month

In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments apply.