Medical Research Council

The Medical Research Council (MRC) is a national organisation funded by UK tax-payers. Its business is medical research aimed at improving human health. The chairman of MRC between 1998 and 2006 was Sir Anthony Cleaver, who was replaced by Sir John Chisholm previously the executive chairman of QinetiQ, now non-executive chairman. It is perhaps worth noting that the former chairman, Anthony Cleaver is on the board of Lockheed Martin, therefore since 1998 the last two chairman of the MRC both have strong involvement with arms companies. Both men were appointed to the post of chair by Science Minister Lord David Sainsbury.

MRC Seriously Criticised

In 2003 The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report highly critical of MRC's performance under the leadership of Sir Anthony Cleaver. The report focused on the use of public money to fund scientific research organisations. In general the committe found that most research organisations used their government funding well and that the government should continue to support their work and use their expertise more in policy development. The committee chair was Dr Ian Gibson, who, prior to becoming an MP was Dean of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia.

When it came to the MRC many criticisms were made such as poor financial management and planning, so poor in fact that research proposals submitted, even when they achieved the highest grade in peer reviews could not be funded. The then MRC’s chief executive, Sir George Radda told the committee ‘...with hindsight we should have had more foresight’. Indeed. As Christopher Martyn writes: These criticisms will hardly come as news to the biomedical research community. Had you eavesdropped at any scientific gathering over the last few years, you would have heard the same sort of thing. The report, however, validates our complaints, and shows that they amount to much more than sour grapes from researchers whose grant proposals have been turned down. It should also make us ask ourselves why we have put up with this state of affairs for so long"

In compiling the report, the committee considered both written and oral evidence from a wide range of people with a stake in medical research. One worrying feature was that most of the scientists who gave evidence chose to present their views anonymously. (The exceptions deserve our admiration.) Why would they have elected to comment in this way unless they felt that voicing criticism of the MRC would damage their prospects of success in subsequent grant applications? The MRC say that their only criterion for funding is the quality of the science in the application, and we must believe them. But perhaps those who asked to remain anonymous found it hard to forget that the MRC administration controls the selection of peer reviewers, and has the power of appointment to the boards that recommend what shall and shall not be funded. It is difficult to interpret this perceived need for anonymity in any other way than an indication of lack of trust in the relationship between researchers and the UK’s main public funding body.