MRC CAMBRIDGE
Space craft: small quarters promote research at the LMB.
Scientists working at the institutes run by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) have it pretty good. With secure multi-year funding, they are free to take risks, engage in collaborations and broach big questions. "The most important single thing about research institutes is that they allow the scientists to take on difficult problems, long-term problems," says Keith Peters, the interim director of the National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) in Mill Hill, London.
However, these institutes are facing change. The NIMR is still considering a controversial move into central London, first proposed in spring 2003. The Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge is getting a new building. The Clinical Sciences Centre (CSC) in Hammersmith, London, is waiting for a new director. And, as of last year, institute scientists are now eligible to solicit external funding from major agencies, such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK.
Through the changes, certain traditions are held dear: small group size and a cooperative atmosphere are seen as crucial to the MRC's impressive track record. In relation to research money spent, the MRC has won more Nobel prizes than any other organization in the world, according to Chris Higgins, former director of the CSC. Most of them were bestowed on scientists employed by the MRC. As well as its own employees, the MRC also funds a large network of biomedical researchers in hospitals and universities in the United Kingdom and overseas — and funding has been ample in recent years.
Over a five-year period, the NIMR's budget has grown by 15% to £34 million (US$68 million), the LMB's by 14% to £21 million, and the CSC's by 44% to £15 million (the CSC's spike is due in large part to a recent emphasis on imaging and imaging tools). These institutes, famous for their achievements and intimate layout, are trying to keep current and continue making landmark finds. As well as those at its institutes, the MRC employs researchers at 31 'units', which are one-topic, one-leader laboratories usually housed in a university or hospital, including two in Africa. Taken together, the institutes and units received £224 million of funding for 2005–2006. Another £238 million went to outside grants.
Lab culture
MRC
Two things people never have enough of, time and money, are in better supply at MRC institutes than at many universities. A career-track scientist gets a five-year appointment, a good salary, an equipped lab and a core group consisting of a postdoc, a graduate student and a technician. "It's a very attractive place to make the jump from postdoctoral fellow to junior group leader," says Katrin Rittinger, who did just that at the NIMR. Although group leaders are not assured continued funding, LMB director Hugh Pelham says that even difficult projects deemed worthwhile are supported during lean periods. Research is the MRC scientists' only responsibility, says Peters, they are much less distracted by teaching or administrative work.
The big difference is you can get on with things without having to write grants.
Hugh Pelham
"The big difference is you can get on with things without having to write grants," says Pelham. "You can do things without having to establish a prior track record." Extra money is available, however, now that MRC researchers have been authorized to seek outside funding, as part of a broader open-door policy among several major UK granting agencies. There has been some concern, though, that review panels would discriminate against well-funded MRC researchers. "Yes, we feared that a lot," says Mariann Bienz, division leader at the LMB. "Because the LMB is doing very well, people think there's a huge amount of money going into it, but that's actually not the case. Compared to all other MRC institutes, we have the fewest resources per staff."
MRC scientists like the fact that one budget serves a whole institute rather than being divvied up among groups. That means less administrative burden for group leaders, says Bienz, and no possessiveness about equipment or reagents. At universities, in contrast, individual budgets encourage "an us-and-them attitude", Bienz says. Students feel the freedom as well. When Amedee des Georges, a PhD student at the LMB, gets an idea, he pursues it. "In my former lab, I would have had to discuss it with my boss and get the money to buy the consumables," he says.
Small group size and a collaborative atmosphere help as well. Having fewer members gives group leaders the chance to spend time at the bench, and the lack of teaching or administrative duties allows them the time. When Pelham wanted to learn yeast genetics a few years ago, he just wandered next door, he says.
Controversial move
The NIMR is the oldest and largest of the three institutes, with funded research dating back to 1914. The institute — which tackles diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, influenza and HIV — moved to the leafy north London suburb of Mill Hill in 1950. With 67 group leaders, 272 postdocs and 63 students, it has grown by about 50 positions in the past five years.
For the NIMR, the biggest change is a proposed move from its 19-hectare (47-acre) home to less than half a hectare in central London. Disagreement has been rumbling on for years (see 'Inquiry hears claim of threats over lab move' Nature 432, 662; 2004). In 2004, a group of career-track scientists made a statement to the government Select Committee on Science and Technology, opposing the move. "A decision over the future of NIMR should be based on evidence," they wrote. "However, the MRC has yet to provide any evidence to support the need for relocation."
Beyond the disruption the move would inflict, opinions differ on its value. Peters and other supporters cite the advantages of being close to University College London (UCL) and its associated hospitals, without eroding the multidisciplinary and collaborative nature of the NIMR. Modernized labs will make the scientists happy. But with the exorbitant cost of building in central London (the plan has been costed at £320 million), some fear downsizing will be inevitable. Even proximity to an academic hospital may have a downside. "The clinical scientists here like the fact that they're not in the hospital," says group leader Matthew Hannah. "They can do research without being bothered."
DURHAM UNIVERSITY
Up in Cambridge, the LMB may be a middle sibling in terms of age and size, but it is one of the most famous research institutes in the world. During its 60 years, scientists working at the LMB have garnered no fewer than 13 Nobel prizes. New research facilities such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Janelia Farm look to it as a model.
It began as an MRC unit in 1947 and was expanded to include multiple groups in 1962. Currently crowded into its old building are 57 group leaders, 130 postdocs and 74 students. Limited by space, the numbers have remained static for some time, says Pelham. The new building, due to open by 2011, will provide a lot more room, along with new facilities such as a mouse house and an imaging centre.
Chris Higgins
Yet LMB leaders believe close quarters positively influence research — so much so that planners seek to maintain a similar cosiness in the new building. "We'll have more space and better-quality space," says Pelham. "But in designing it, we have taken great care to keep the group leaders very close to the benches and to draw people out into the centre of the building." By fostering chance meetings, designers hope to encourage collegiality and collaboration.
Youngest and smallest of the institutes is the CSC, set up in 1994 and housed in the Hammersmith Hospital complex in London. Its director, Chris Higgins, moved on to become vice-chancellor of Durham University in April, and the CSC hopes to announce a new director soon. Its numbers have remained steady for the past five years: that's 38 group leaders, 91 postdoctoral fellows and 54 students. Higgins downplays complaints that the MRC is pushing translational research at the expense of basic research. A focus on basic research is critical, he says, otherwise "there's nothing to translate".
Scientific personalities
Mariann Bienz: the MRC funding structure cuts down on admin and budget battles.
An institute career isn't right for everybody. It's not a good fit for those who want to teach or seek a broader influence and larger groups, says Peters. "You can imagine people outgrowing a research institute," he says, noting that it offers nothing similar to running a big university department with dozens of people.
The focus on long-term, innovative research is reflected in recruitment. Bienz says there's a premium on individuals who can make their mark with a small group. "That's a very different quality than in a university, where the individual is more autonomous, but is expected to build a big kingdom," Bienz says. Competition is tough: the LMB receives hundreds of applications a year for about a dozen PhD spots.
MRC scientists are not entirely complaint-free. The funding model means that decision-making reviews of scientists, groups, divisions and institutes take place every five years and everything from space to strategic direction is revisited. "We do have fights to get more space," says LMB group leader Linda Amos.
But many see the upside. Amos has been around long enough to recall the financially tight years under the Conservative governments of the 1980s. Younger group leaders compare their lot with their university peers, who are "never not writing grants", says Hannah.
"When you're inside an institute, you think it could be better," says Fusinita van den Ent, a research scientist at the LMB. But discussions at meetings make her appreciate the freedom, security and multi-disciplinary flavour of an MRC career — a good fit for scientists not interested in the typical university set-up.