* Pfizer bid fuels doubts over Astra's move to Cambridge
* Astra planning new $500 mln research, corporate HQ by 2016
* UK wants Pfizer to commit to site, MPs to probe any deal (Adds comments from science minister, paragraphs 4-5)
By Ben Hirschler
CAMBRIDGE, England, May 1 (Reuters) - In Pfizer's $100 billion battle to win British drugmaker AstraZeneca, business and politics meet in a grassy field on theedge of the historic university city of Cambridge.
This is where AstraZeneca plans to open a new $500 millionresearch and corporate headquarters by 2016 - the centrepiece ofCEO Pascal Soriot's plan to overhaul the company and, thegovernment hopes, a new beacon for British life sciences.
Ministers have little ultimate leverage over Pfizer but haveinsisted in talks this week with the company's boss Ian Readthat he push ahead with the planned Cambridge facility if hebuys AstraZeneca, according to people familiar with the matter.
"We realise that the medical research community and othersare keen that if - and it's not a decision for us to make - thisgoes ahead that there should be a maximum commitment to R&D inthe UK," Britain's science minister David Willetts told Reuterson Thursday.
"It's a point I and (finance minister) George (Osborne) and(business minister) Vince (Cable) all made very clearly toPfizer."
But Pfizer, which wants to acquire AstraZeneca partly tomake cost savings, argues it cannot give any promises on futureinvestment and jobs until AstraZeneca engages in discussions andallows it to see its books.
"We are in early stages and it is premature to speculate onany specific impact this would have on facilities," a Pfizerspokesman said.
AstraZeneca has rebuffed two approaches by Pfizer which isexpected to come back with a revised offer before a May 26deadline for it to "put up or shut up" under UK takeover rules.
The stand-off shows how governments are struggling in theface of a wave of cross-border deal-making involvingmultinational corporations.
France, with a long history of industrial intervention, isfinding it has little room to manoeuvre against GeneralElectric's ambitions to buy the power business of TGVtrain-maker Alstom.
In Britain, the position is reversed. Here the governmentchampions open markets but behind the scenes officials are fighting hard to ensure an outcome in the national interest.
PHONEY WAR
It is, so far, a phoney war as Pfizer has yet to make a firmbid. But analysts and bankers are in little doubt it will pushahead, either by sweetening the earlier offer to engage theBritish firm or by taking its approach directly to shareholders.
"History teaches us that Pfizer usually gets what it wantsin the end," said Savvas Neophytou, an analyst at brokeragePanmure Gordon, pointing to past successful takeovers of bigrivals like Wyeth, Warner-Lambert and Pharmacia.
AstraZeneca said it remained committed to its currentstrategy, including plans to move 1,600 scientists and 400 headoffice staff to the new Cambridge site, among them Soriot andhis top lieutenants who will run global operations from here.
Whether Pfizer - which already has a Cambridge R&D unitcalled Neusentis focused on pain and regenerative medicine -will see things the same way is far from certain.
"They're a really good company but I don't know whetherthey'd want this site," said one local employee with the MedicalResearch Council, which recently struck a major deal for itsstaff to work alongside AstraZeneca scientists in Cambridge.
He declined to be identified, given the sensitivity of theissue.
AstraZeneca scientists preparing to move to Cambridge arealso nervous - not least because many are relocating from an oldresearch hub in Alderley Park, near Manchester, where houseprices are far lower, making the move a major personal financialcommitment.
Cambridge member of parliament Julian Huppert said it wasessential for the government to take a firm line to safeguardjobs and science skills. AstraZeneca employs 6,700 staff inBritain.
"It's disappointing that Pfizer have so far been unable togive any clear commitment and that has to raise a lot ofconcerns," he told Reuters.
"The government must extract clear commitments both to theCambridge move but also to things like advanced manufacturing inMacclesfield. It is very important that we don't lose theseskilled jobs."
SCOTSMAN, FRENCHMAN, SWEDE
But the reality is that both drugmakers are very global - ashighlighted by the fact that Pfizer is run by a Scotsman, whileAstraZeneca has a French CEO and a Swedish chairman in LeifJohansson - so forcing a deal on Pfizer may not be easy.
Nonetheless, there may be some room for give and take. "Youcould envisage a deal whereby Pfizer commits to Cambridge insome way in exchange for government goodwill, good cooperationwith the National Health Service, and so on," said one industryinsider.
Britain has been burnt before on foreign takeovers, notablyKraft's 2010 acquisition of Cadbury, when the U.S. foodgroup promised to keep open a key factory, only to go back onthe pledge soon after the deal was completed.
Pfizer's reputation is also under a cloud following adecision three years ago to shut most of its research work at alarge R&D centre in Sandwich, southern England, where Viagra wasinvented, with the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs.
As a result, British lawmakers intend to investigate theplanned takeover.
There seems little prospect Pfizer will face a bidding warfor AstraZeneca. GlaxoSmithKline, Britain's biggestdrugmaker which could potentially make the biggest cost savingsby combining with AstraZeneca, said on Wednesday it was just an"interested observer".
One reason why Pfizer seems unlikely to face a challenger isthat few other companies can match the tax benefits it will beable to extract from buying AstraZeneca.
Pfizer has tens of billions of dollars accumulated throughforeign subsidiaries, which if repatriated to the United Stateswould be heavily taxed. Buying AstraZeneca would avoid that,while also providing the chance to re-domicile for tax purposesin Britain, bringing down its corporate tax rate, giving it abig incentive to make sure a takeover gets done. (Additional reporting by Mark Potter and William James; Editingby Anna Willard and Mark Potter)
Astrazeneca (AZN)
Glaxosmithkline (GSK)
