午夜福利1000集合

EVEN for a man who has run 18 marathons, bounding up the few steps outside 20 Park Crescent in one of London鈥檚 smartest areas could be the hardest challenge of his life. Colin Blakemore, one of the UK鈥檚 best-known medical scientists, will be doing just that most days for the next four years at least 鈥� as the new boss of the Medical Research Council.

One of Blakemore鈥檚 main missions will be to steer the MRC as it works out how to exploit fully the completed human genome project, turning the map of thousands of genes into something researchers can use to build novel therapies. Just as important, however, will be rehabilitating the council in the eyes of disenchanted researchers and unimpressed politicians.

The past year in particular has been a time of highs and lows for the MRC. On the one hand, it celebrated the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA鈥檚 structure 鈥� by MRC-funded researchers; on the other, a top committee of MPs attacked it fiercely. Then just as the council was launching Biobank, the world鈥檚 largest medical databank, a storm broke about the future of its largest research centre.

The MRC鈥檚 story goes back to 1913, when it was set up to find treatments for tuberculosis. It has supported the work of 22 Nobel laureates, including Alexander Fleming, Francis Crick and James Watson, and two of last year鈥檚 winners, John Sulston and Sydney Brenner. Financially, the MRC has great clout 鈥� by British standards, at least. Half of all medical research in the UK is funded by the council, with a budget of 拢411.5 million in 2003/04 (the Wellcome Trust will spend a similar sum this financial year).

Blakemore has had a long relationship with the MRC since 1969. 鈥淚鈥檝e probably held MRC programme grants [five-year awards] longer than anyone else in the country,鈥� he laughs. But he has never been an MRC employee or sat on the council, so he is not seen as part of an inner circle. 鈥淭his might have been one of the factors in my appointment. I think that the MRC was anxious to show that it could appoint an 鈥榦utsider鈥�.鈥� And this arm鈥檚-length choice may be crucial, given the rather fragile relationship between the MRC and its researchers.

Blakemore certainly has respect among researchers. In his last incarnation, as head of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Oxford, he became well known for his research on the development of the visual system, for promoting science to the public 鈥� and for his staunch defence of using animals in research. He takes over from George Radda, also a former professor at the University of Oxford, who stepped down after seven years.

鈥淏lakemore is unquestionably an outstanding scientist in his own right,鈥� says Peter Cotgreave, director of the campaign group Save British Science. 鈥淲hatever decisions he takes 鈥� and there will always be people who disagree 鈥� the medical community will respect them. I can鈥檛 think of anyone better placed to go forward.鈥�

But there will be no honeymoon period for Blakemore. 鈥淭he image of the MRC is not ideal at the moment,鈥� he says. A report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee this March attacked the MRC on many fronts, citing a lack of communication about major plans and bias towards large-scale projects over individual grants.

The report provoked a strong reaction. Many scientists leapt to the council鈥檚 support, and in June the government issued a robust defence of the organisation. But whether or not the MRC was justly pilloried, the report highlights the 鈥渢hem and us鈥� relationship between the MRC and the researchers it supports. 鈥淭he Science and Technology Committee said that their critical report reflected widespread opinion received in correspondence, much of it anonymous,鈥� says Blakemore. 鈥淚t is worrying that the medical community has these views about the MRC. There ought to be a very close, symbiotic relationship between researchers and the MRC, which should engender respect if not affection, but the current shortage of funds for grants has produced suspicion and hostility.鈥�

These are serious issues. Blakemore will need to call on the MRC鈥檚 reserves of goodwill and its international standing. It has an enviable record in research, even compared with the US where funding for the National Institutes of 午夜福利1000集合 is about forty times higher, says Blakemore. The MRC has a strong reputation for backing winners.

In the interests of maintaining that reputation, the MRC has set up the UK鈥檚 first stem-cell bank at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control near London, which is on standby to receive its first stem-cell lines. This repository will offer biologists access to adult, fetal and embryonic stem cells, in the hope they can seize a leading position in the field of organ and tissue regeneration.

Blakemore will also steer the MRC鈥檚 role in the 拢45 million Biobank project, one of the biggest medical research initiatives ever launched. Biobank, Radda鈥檚 brainchild, is also backed by the Wellcome Trust and the Department of 午夜福利1000集合. The plan is to follow the health of half a million volunteers over 25 years to establish the role of genes and environment in our health. The project will recruit patients and doctors within the next few years.

However, some believe that large projects such as Biobank are taking money away from individual research grants. 鈥淭he big glamorous Biobank project was launched just at the time when researchers were most worried about the declining funding for research grants. Not surprisingly, they put two and two together and said: 鈥楢ha, the MRC has robbed the grant funds to establish this sexy project.鈥� That鈥檚 absolutely incorrect.鈥� In fact, Biobank鈥檚 funding was new, earmarked money, and it will never take more than 1 per cent of the total budget in any one year. Blakemore says he is more concerned with getting the science of Biobank right 鈥� obtaining adequate medical information to do reliable epidemiological studies, and analysing genetic information within the budget.

However, striking the right balance between large and small projects is clearly an issue for the council. The money available for individual research projects, the so-called response-mode funding, was slammed in the Science and Technology Committee report: 鈥溾��the recent success rate for the MRC鈥檚 grant applications has fallen to levels that are unacceptable鈥�. The bottom line is that a project that would have been funded three years ago probably would not be successful today. Blakemore is equally unequivocal: 鈥淭he money for response-mode funding for grants has varied enormously over the past three years. That has caused chaos in the universities. It wasn鈥檛 the MRC鈥檚 fault but it鈥檚 certainly not fair to researchers. People expect to be judged on the quality of their work, not on the basis of huge fluctuations in funding.鈥�

So what is he going to do? 鈥淚 want to be able to guarantee in advance that a certain amount of money each year will be available for university research.鈥� And one of the reasons for the fluctuations has already been addressed: in 1999, just 5 per cent of the budget could be carried forward into the following financial year to smooth out swings in funding, but now this has been increased to 10 per cent.

Delve into most of these issues, and communication seems to lie at the root. 鈥淥ne of the big failings of the MRC has been not communicating what it is doing with its own research community,鈥� says Cotgreave. For him, breaking down the 鈥渢hem and us鈥� culture should be top of Blakemore鈥檚 priorities. Blakemore agrees: 鈥淭he MRC needs to be even more transparent and open. The researchers are the principal stakeholders in the MRC and it鈥檚 only right that we listen to them and do our best to accommodate their needs.鈥�

To this end autumn 12 鈥渞oad shows鈥� will visit the UK鈥檚 major medical research universities. 鈥淚t鈥檒l be an open forum, where we can have a discussion about what the MRC should be doing,鈥� says Blakemore. 鈥淚 want the researchers to know that any strategic changes at the MRC will be informed by this consultation.鈥�

Another sensitive issue for Blakemore is the MRC鈥檚 flagship research centre, the National Institute for Medical Research in north London. In April, the MRC caused a storm when it announced a draft plan to shrink the NIMR and move it to Addenbrooke鈥檚 Hospital in Cambridge, 80 kilometres away. NIMR researchers were furious, not least about the lack of consultation. That proposal has been shelved, and a special NIMH task force will rethink the issue from scratch. This will include representatives of NIMR staff and the council, plus eminent external referees, mainly from abroad, says Blakemore. The task force will report next summer.

If Blakemore can push through the changes he wants, researchers should find the MRC more receptive to their needs. He was, after all, one of them until 1 October. And he still will be 鈥� one day a week at least, because he will keep his professorship at Oxford and spend that day at his old lab. 鈥淚 really hope to maintain a presence in research. I think it鈥檚 important to stay in touch with bench science and bench scientists.鈥�

And those marathons? Will the daily demands of his new job consign Blakemore鈥檚 running shoes to the cupboard? Not a chance. 鈥淚鈥檓 very pleased that the MRC is right next to Regent鈥檚 Park and I still intend to run every day,鈥� he says.