PROGRESS REPORT ON "WHAT SHAPES THE RESEARCH
AGENDA?" WORKSTREAM
Background
This paper gives a brief summary of progress with the Commission’s work on
research agendas in agricultural biotechnology. The workstream will examine
the key drivers behind research agendas in agricultural biotechnology and ask
whether the processes that research funders use to set their priorities are
properly geared towards addressing both policy needs and the attitudes and
aspirations of the public.
The workstream is modular, comprising several distinct stages, including
information gathering and analysis, public and stakeholder engagement and
investigation of case studies. These are being project managed with the aim
of completing the workstream around April 2005.
Core group
The research agendas workstream is being driven forward and overseen
within the AEBC by a core group of three members: Matthew Freeman (workstream
"champion"), Phil Dale and Sue Mayer. Several other AEBC members are also
actively involved. In keeping with the modular approach, the intention is for
other AEBC members to get involved as and when they wish or when areas of relevance
to their interests or expertise are being discussed.
The core group has met twice. On 8 April 2004 a broad scope of the project was
agreed, as tabled at the Commission’s meeting in London in May(1). On 18 May, the
core group, with four other AEBC members (Jeff Maxwell, Keekok Lee, Rosie Hails,
Helen Browning), discussed the aims of the planned public and stakeholder engagement
exercise in more depth and agreed some case studies topics to be pursued (see below).
A third meeting is planned for 20 July and notes of the meetings will soon be posted
on the AEBC’s website. Outside meetings, workstream business is also being pursued
through e-mail and telephone conferencing.
Information gathering
The AEBC secretariat is currently gathering information from UK research funders
in agricultural biotechnology, focusing on decision-making structures and methods
used to determine priorities. In addition, the Commission took evidence from some
key players at its May meeting(2) and will do the same at its July meeting in Aberdeen.
In gathering information on the key drivers behind research agendas, the Commission
intends to cover the wider drivers that affect agricultural biotechnology research
agendas, such as the forthcoming 10-year framework for science and innovation, in
addition to the agriculture-specific issues.
The intention is to produce a paper setting out and analysing the information
gathered on research agendas in the autumn. The detailed format of this paper will
be discussed at the core group’s July meeting.
Public and stakeholder engagement work
AEBC members want to be sure that their work on research agendas is framed so as
to address the issues that concern both the public and those with a stake in
agricultural biotechnology research. Members feel that a proactive approach is
needed to engage members of the public and certain "hard to reach" stakeholder
groups whose views may not be captured through normal contacts and processes. They
have therefore agreed that professional social researchers should be hired to undertake
two engagement exercises. The first will involve members of the public in a two-way
deliberative process, where the Commission will refer back more than once to the same
group of people, ensuring that its work is informed by and is relevant to the issues as
understood by the group and remains so throughout its deliberations. The second will be a
similar process but drawing on with three different "hard to reach" interest groups -
probably (i) working scientists; (ii) farmers and other land managers and (iii) advisors
from agencies/departments delivering policy advice at the farm gate.
A tender document for these exercises has been drafted and agreed and is now being
finalised. It will be sent to a small selection of possible contractors suggested by
Commission members and others.
Case studies
As part of the research agendas workstream, the Commission proposes to use case studies
to look at the effects on specific areas of research and development (i) of the balance of
key drivers behind research agendas and (ii) of the mechanisms used to take into account
public attitudes and policy priorities. This is a more realistic undertaking than an
exhaustive survey of the effects on all agricultural biotechnology research and, if the
case studies are carefully chosen, will generate more useful conclusions.
Four areas for case studies have been agreed: these are plant breeding; soil science;
cross-disciplinary research and research for developing countries (see Annex). These case
study topics have yet to be scoped in any detail, including the main questions to be addressed,
and they will also need to be prioritised to decide on the order in which they should
be pursued.
AEBC secretariat, June 2004
Annex
Proposed Case Studies for Research Agendas Workstream
a. Plant Breeding
There are perceptions about the effect of a shift from publicly funded to privately funded
crop research, including the neglect of "orphan crops" of low commercial significance but
possible great benefit to society.
There have been some major exercises in public and stakeholder engagement related to this
area. Aside from GM Nation?, a joint BBSRC/Science Museum consensus conference on plant
biotechnology took place as early as 1994. The conclusions of a BBSRC consultation on
Future Directions in crop science, to inform priorities over the next 10-20 years, have
recently been published.
A case study in this area would therefore first seek to consider how research in plant
breeding is structured and what effects the work undertaken, and second to consider how such
formal public and stakeholder engagement exercises or other methods of gauging public views
have actually informed or influenced research agendas.
b. Soil Science
This is a crucial area of research, but the complaint that there has been a decline in soil
science research is heard regularly. When questioned on this at the AEBC meeting on 5 May,
Professor Ian Crute (Rothamsted Research) felt that there had been a decline in funding in
absolute terms, but only in proportion to the rest of agricultural research. ‘Traditional’
techniques and methods were being used less, but were being replaced with others. Some members
felt that the key question was not whether there has been a decline, but whether what was
being done now was adequate.
This study would ask how high-level research drivers have been interpreted and have
affected/are affecting soil science, allowing consideration of whether there is evidence that
it is significantly under-supported, and/or whether some areas of the subject are being
supported to the neglect of others.
c. Cross-Disciplinary Research
To achieve sustainability in agriculture will require a cross-disciplinary approach, and this
should be taken into account in setting research agendas geared towards sustainability.
Attempts are being made to encourage cross-disciplinary research into agriculture, land use
and rural affairs. For example, the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) is a joint
ESRC, BBSRC and NERC programme with £20m funding over three years. An ESRC-funded
transdisciplinary seminar series on approaches to sustainable farmland management is taking
place throughout 2004.
A possible case study on cross-disciplinary working would look at the mechanisms used for
co-ordinating agendas between the various research funding bodies, as well as specific
initiatives like RELU and how their priorities were arrived at. It would also need to
consider the effects of the cultural and methodological divide between scientists of different
disciplines, including social scientists.
d. Research for Developing Countries
The Research Agendas workstream will focus on UK funded research, but including any research
relating to the needs of developing countries (e.g. DFID’s research). The Nuffield Council
for Bioethics has recommended that Governments should fund a major expansion of GM-related
research into tropical and sub-tropical staple foods, suitable for the needs of small-scale
farmers. Guests at the AEBC meeting on 5 May felt that, after a move away from agricultural
research for developing countries in the 1980s, developing countries were again high on the
political agenda. Resources were beginning to be targeted to this area, although still only
representing a small proportion of total funding. Some Commission members have expressed a
special interest in examining research for developing countries, and this could be done through
a case study. This study could therefore ask how research drivers have affected/are affecting
the targeting of research funding towards developing countries’ needs.
