Paper AEBC
05/09
Agriculture
and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) Research Agendas workstream:
Introduction and Context
1. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology
Commission’s (AEBC’s) consultation and information gathering exercises on
research agendas have identified a number of key drivers of agricultural
biotechnology research and thrown up a number of issues around the processes
through which research agendas are determined. This case study aims to focus on
one area of research in order to identify the important influences on that
field of research, and explore the implication of these drivers for the
research agenda in that area.
2. Soil science was an area of research highlighted for
such a case study early on in the Commission’s thinking, because of an
often-cited perception that agricultural soil science has declined in recent
years. As a more process-oriented and less product- and industry-focused area
of science, it contrasts helpfully with our other case study, on plant
breeding.
3. This paper has been developed through consultation
and discussion with a number of soil scientists (listed in Annex 1), and
farming organisations. All those
consulted largely agreed with the portrayal of soil science in this paper. We
also sought to represent individual views, although we have not attributed
these. However, the content of this paper as a whole is the sole responsibility
of the AEBC.
Summary
4. The soil is a highly complex and dynamic system.
Understanding its physical and chemical properties is hard enough, but it also
harbours a remarkable biodiversity. The relationships between these abiotic and
biotic components and the soil’s many functions are still poorly understood.
Nevertheless, since its beginnings in the 19th century, soil science
has helped to produce the vastly improved yields of modern agriculture.
5. The soil’s role in a host of other processes, such as
carbon cycling and climate change, pollution and ecosystem function mean that
factors other than a desire to improve agricultural productivity can influence
research agendas. In the last twenty-five years in most Western cultures, the
key drivers behind soil science have changed considerably as technical advances
have begun to allow fundamental soil processes to be understood. Food
production continues to be the driving force behind soil science research in
developing countries.
6. Soil science is an interesting case study of how a
particular area of science is adapting to changing priorities and as technical
developments allow new approaches to be taken. In this case study, we have
examined the implications of the redirection of priorities and resources on the
soil science that is carried out today, including the key areas of work and
sources of funding, looking particularly at the consequences for agricultural
soil science. We conclude that, after a period of neglect in the 1980s, soil
science has entered a dynamic and exciting phase, and a time of great potential
to contribute to understanding on today’s most important environmental issues. We also find
that the research agenda setting process has proved to be agile in responding
to new challenges and opportunities.
7. The reconstruction of soil science to address wider,
environmental questions has inevitably meant a decline in the resources
directed to agricultural research, and we find that soil science has not yet
been able to respond as thoroughly to the sustainable agriculture agenda as it
has the potential to do. Some important agricultural questions are in danger of
being neglected. We also conclude that the rapid redirection of resources has
had a negative consequence on the skills base, with a dangerous loss of
expertise particularly in the physical soil sciences. This poses a threat to
the multidisciplinarity that is necessary for soil science to thrive, and to
which current funding structures pose some barriers.
The
Nineteenth Century
8. The early stages of soil science from the beginning
to the late 19th century developed along two separate lines – the
agricultural soil chemistry path and the weathered rock, soil physics and
agrogeology path[1]. There was little significant interaction
between them until the beginning of the 20th century. However, there were a number of important
developments over this period: Liebig’s mineral theory of plant nutrients of
the 1840’s; the recognition of the importance of the soil profile (later known
as the pedon) by Darwin and Dokuchaev; the identification of soil forming
processes (e.g. the role of earthworms in soil mixing, Darwin 1881); the
variable nature of humus (soil organic matter) and its role in soil forming
processes (e.g. Mueller, 1840-1926);
9. Consequent upon and following the establishment of
the long-term field experiments by Lawes and Gilbert in the 1840’s the research
at Rothamsted focussed on the relationship between soil conditions and
fertility and its effect on crop yield.
Out of these experiments and many others the first edition of Soil
Conditions and Plant Growth by Sir E John Russell was published in 1912. His son, Walter Russell, published the
eighth edition in 1973, and the 11th multi-authored edition was published in
1988. The several editions of this book
have played no small part in shaping the evolution of soil science in Britain
and in many other countries of the world[2]
recognising that soil science and soil management is a multi-disciplined
activity embracing pedology (the study of soil origins and the soil profile),
soil chemistry, soil physics, soil biology, plant nutrition and other branches
of the life sciences.
10. The principal drivers of research during the 19th
century were curiosity and a need to understand how to use soils and
fertilise them to maintain and increase crop yields. The design of the long-term Rothamsted experiments reflects this;
a comparison of the yield of crops grown on soils receiving farmyard manure
alone, farmyard manure plus inorganic nitrogen, inorganic nitrogen alone,
and various combinations of compound fertiliser materials. The funding came from trusts and farmers
committed to improving their husbandry techniques and the output from their
farms. Farmers were involved in the
research.
The
Twentieth Century
11. At the beginning of the 20th century an
understanding of the role of microbes in the decomposition of plant residues in
returning nutrients to the soil (e.g. Waksman, 1888-1973) was developed, and
towards the middle of the century following Jenny’s model (1941) of soil
nutrient dynamics, different types of model were developed to understand the
medium and long term dynamics of soil organic matter. The early part of the 20th century saw also the
beginnings of soil survey in Britain which led ultimately to the production and
completion of the 1:250,000 scale soil survey of England and Wales in 1983 and
of Scotland in 1989[3].
12. During the first half of the 20th century a greater understanding of soil chemistry and plant
nutrition provided the impetus both to establish the extent of variation in
agricultural soils through soil survey and to gain greater understanding of how
to manage their nutrient status to support a variety of crops. This was a period during which the
Agricultural Research Council was established (1934) and the Departments of
Agriculture began to take initiatives during and after World War II to improve
output from British agriculture. Thus
the funding for soil science during this period was predominantly from the
public purse. The opportunities for the rapid development of soil science
and the need to increase crop yields were primary drivers during this period.
From
1975
15. Then, following first the Rothschild Report in 1971,
which embodied the customer-contractor principle but which was critical of the
Agricultural Research Council and second, the report of the Advisory Committee
for Applied Research and Development in 1975, which emphasised the relevance of
public research to manufacturing and industry, funding for agricultural
research was reduced. Consequently Agricultural Departments and the ARC began a
process of prioritisation and a reduction in the numbers of scientists involved
in agricultural research.
16. By the early to mid 1980’s this process had gathered
pace: furthermore the increased output from agriculture and the oversupply of
agricultural commodities within Europe brought into question the continued
public investment in agricultural research. This was considered also in
relation to the need for public research investment to support other industries
and the need to improve their competitiveness. The lack of private and
commercial investment in agricultural research also began to influence funding
policy. Moreover, in 1984 ARC became
AFRC, the Agricultural and Food Research Council, with responsibility to
include research to address concerns about food safety. Funding for agricultural
research continued to be redeployed.
17. The negative impact on agricultural soil
science research funding in the UK over this period was considerable. During
the process of prioritisation several factors appear to have influenced the
reduction in resources allocated to soil science. The large increases in crop
yields that had been achieved were the result of many improvements in
technology – crop breeding, methods of disease and weed control, and not least
the information that related crop yield to fertiliser inputs for different soil
types and cultivation regimes. With regard to the latter soil science was
deemed to have delivered. In addition, government policy development indicated
that it wished to remove funding from ‘near market research’ such as this,
which it did eventually in 1990.
18. Priorities were also determined by judgments about
the potential for innovation within different areas of science supporting
agriculture and the growth of agribusinesses. Developments in cell and
molecular biology, and plant genomics were judged to show real promise: with
its responsibility to fund science that had the potential to underpin future
commercial developments the AFRC moved greater resources into this area of
biotechnology. By the mid 80’s agricultural soil science seems to have reached
a plateau in terms of development and lost some of its innovative zeal. Its
period of empirical research appears to have been judged at this time to have
been too applied and too ‘near market’: therefore, in the ‘cut and thrust’ of
prioritisation soil science ‘lost out’.
1990
onwards
19. A combination of several changes in research policy
direction and an unfavourable view of the current innovative status of soil
science at the time led to a greatly reduced capacity for agricultural
soil science in the UK by the beginning of the 1990’s. While the principal
driver for soil science up to the mid 80’s had been to improve crop yields,
this was no longer a priority in terms of government research funding for the
rest of the century. In terms of
attracting funding, agricultural soil science had lost its appeal.
20. However, a core capability was sustained and soil
biologists scientists were already contributing to approaches that moved the
emphasis towards process based research and mathematical modelling. Modelling
provided the impetus to gain a much clearer and quantitative understanding of
nutrient cycling, particularly nitrogen and carbon, and was used to understand
how pesticides moved through the soil. It also led to an interest in processes
at the scale of the rhizosphere. Developments in microbiology have led to a
greater ability to identify the role of populations of microbes in nutrient
cycling and how specific organisms can be used to identify the resilience of
soils to pollutant damage as well as being used as toxic indicators in water.
At the same time, the increased functionality of soil information held in
databases and within Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has led to their use
in a wide range of environmental and ecological applications, including the
assessment of nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural
soils and the ecological potential of soils for habitats of nature conservation
value. Some of these applications have had direct relevance to policy, for
example in the water industry. GIS and database technology has helped raise
awareness of the multi-functional role of soil in the environment through these
and other applications directly related to end-users other than primary
producers in the agricultural sector.
21. The early 90’s was a period of refocus for soil
science in the UK. Pollution issues
first came to the fore in the 1980s and it became apparent that the issues of
public concern were the impact of acid rain and fertilisers on water quality
and the ecology of rivers, and the resilience of soils to the impact of waste,
and heavy metals as pollutants. There was a decisive shift towards a broader
interest in the role of soils in the environment and ecosystem function. As a
corollary soil research for agriculture became concerned with the more
efficient use of fertilisers and effective use of farmyard manures, and a small
amount of research to support the development of organic farming. These were
the issues that became the primary drivers during much of the 90’s for the
limited amount of soil research that was funded.
Drivers
for the 21st Century?
22. The significant shift away from the agricultural
production focus of the past, towards environmental protection, is driven
largely by Government policy needs, with European Union policy on soils having
a strong influence on national policy. The European Commission (EC) has
concluded that the management of our soil resource is central to environmental
ecosystem sustainability; it must be managed, conserved and protected. The EC
intends to develop a soil strategy as one of seven 'thematic strategies'
foreseen under the EU's 6th Environment Action Programme. As a first step in
the development of an encompassing EU policy to protect soils against erosion
and pollution, it published a communication Towards a Thematic Strategy for
Soil Protection in April 2002[5].
This communication proposed a soil monitoring directive and the establishment
of criteria of soil quality to harmonise data collection and monitoring in EU
Member States. Research in some
countries of Europe including the UK has been stimulated in anticipation of
having to implement these proposals. Other European policies that influence the
direction of soil science include the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrates
Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Landfill Directive
– not being soil-specific, these require a more holistic approach to soils as
part of the wider environment.
23. Partly as a result of the EU attention, Defra has
recently published a Soil Action Plan for England 2004-06, to improve
the protection and management of soils within a range of land uses[6].
There are several research related actions, including a commitment “to review
the Defra soil research programme … to ensure that resources are focused on the
most urgent questions”. SEERAD’s new research strategy for environment, biology
and agriculture research includes “protecting the nation’s soils” as one of its
12 programme objectives[7].
24. At the international level an important impetus
developed in the late 1990s prior to and following the Kyoto Protocol to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed in December 1997. The Protocol contains legally binding
commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the period
2008-2012 by at least 5% below 1990 levels.
Europe’s commitment is to achieve an 8% reduction and the UK has
committed itself to a 12% cut with a voluntary target of 20% below that of
1990. Associated changes in the net
fluxes of two other greenhouse gases identified in the Protocol – nitrous oxide
and methane – will have also to be taken into account. The problem of how to quantify the soil
sources and sinks, to maximise carbon sequestration, and to minimise soil emissions
of methane and nitrous oxide presents a major scientific challenge to the soil
science community over the next few years (Smith, 1999)[8].
25. At the same time as the aims of soil science have
moved towards environmental objectives, there has been a shift towards soil
biology at the expense of soil physics, chemistry and pedology. Many argue that
biology lies at the heart of the scientific enterprise of the twenty-first
century in general, and see soil science as an integral part of that
enterprise. Technological developments in biology have changed soil science and
created new potential for progress. Much of the focus, and investment, lies
today with the use of modern molecular biological and microbiological
techniques. Polymerase chain reaction- (PCR-) based techniques and latterly
genomics and other “omic” sciences have allowed identification, quantification
and functional characterisation of soil micro-organisms in ways that were not
achievable before using traditional cell culture methods.
26. Important practical issues require soil biology
knowledge. These include understanding the role of soil processes in global
warming and strategies to ameliorate it; enhanced and safe recycling of waste
from manures, urban and industrial activity; pollutant destruction at waste
disposal sites as well as landscapes contaminated from natural processes;
biological control of rhizosphere pests; enhanced groundwater quality;
discovery of new biotechnological products, including pharmaceuticals,
pesticides and enzymes from the undiscovered microbial diversity of soil; and
optimising recycling of soil nutrients for sustainable agriculture and
forestry, Tiedje, (2001)[9]. The basic premise behind an attempt to
understand the complex soil community is that further knowledge will pay off in
improvements in agriculture, environmental decision-making and management, and
many of the practical issues listed above.
Soil science today
27. How have the major changes to soil science described
above affected the type of research actually done? Our discussions with a
number of soil scientists (as listed in Annex 1) provided us with a series of
illustrative snapshots, which we have used to make a number of observations. It
is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of current soil science; this has
already been done in the October 2003 UK Soil Research Audit[10]
(see also below).
28. Notwithstanding the growing importance of molecular
biology, soil chemistry and soil physics are still practised, though it is in
these disciplines that the shift to the big, global environmental questions
such as climate change has been greatest. Several of the organisations we spoke
to included little soil molecular biology work in their research portfolios,
including Reading, Rothamsted and IGER (North Wyke).
29. Descriptions of the work carried out in the
organisations we looked at confirmed that agricultural questions were only a
small element of soil science today. However, there is work of direct
relevance to agriculture. Much of this is of a basic or strategic nature,
and is focused on natural and fundamental processes, and environmental rather
than production issues[11]. Nevertheless, advances in applying knowledge
and understanding of nutrient cycling (particularly nitrogen) have led to
nutrient (fertiliser) management models that are of practical
significance. Other agriculture- and
environment-related topics include:
·
research aimed at
understanding rhizosphere systems, root-soil-microbial interactions, and root
mechanics;
·
manures, composts and
other organic materials, the chemical and microbial processes occurring in
them, nutrient uptake from them and their effect on soil;
·
soil microbiology and
microbial ecology/biodiversity, including the microbial pathogens and the
identification of bio-control agents for them;
·
nutrient and water
supply, and movement of organic and inorganic compounds through soil into
water.
30. Another significant area of work involves looking at biogeochemical
cycling of carbon and nutrients through soils. This is of great relevance
to climate change and also, for example in the case of nitrous oxides, to
pollution. Carbon and nutrient cycling can be examined at a number of scales,
from local to global, and frequently involves mathematical modelling. On the
landscape scale, there is also a body of work focusing on soil aspects of
land management, and interactions with water quality and pollution. This
links to policy in these areas by providing a scientific underpinning and
methodologies to determine environmental risk from human activities.
31. Bioremediation is another major focus for soil science, again driven by EU and
national regulations on decontamination of polluted soils. A number of
biological, chemical and physical methods, and both high- and low-tech
approaches, are being looked at to remove contaminants from soil. Examples
include:
·
molecular
characterisation of soil organisms and managing the soil environment to create
the right conditions to best allow existing microflora to clean the soil;
·
hydrocarbon-based
bioremediation;
·
nanotechnology – the
use of photocatalysis to remove contaminants.
Sources
of funding
32. The main funders of soil science continue to be the
research councils – primarily the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) –
and Government departments – primarily Defra and SEERAD. Government department
funding appears to be concentrated somewhat in particular institutes (rather
than University departments): Rothamsted and IGER for Defra and SCRI, MLURI and
SAC for SEERAD. The balance between Research Council and Government department
funding varies considerably as key policy needs change. In the late 1990s, for
example, around three quarters of soil science research at Rothamsted was
funded by Defra, as part of their nitrates research programme, but today this
has declined to about one quarter, with some of the slack taken up by BBSRC
funding.
33. Wealth creation is a key driver behind all publicly
funded research. However, it appears to be relatively unimportant for soil
science compared to other areas. There is no “soil science industry” like the
agricultural biotechnology or agrochemical industries, and therefore industry
funding of soil science research is relatively low. Fertiliser and other
agrochemical companies fund some research, as do the agricultural levy bodies,
but few of the scientists we spoke to receive significant funding from these
sources. The main source of industry funding among those we consulted was in
the area of bioremediation, and unrelated to agriculture. Although driven
by policy requirements to clean up land, bioremediation is very
business-oriented because companies that own contaminated land bear
responsibility for cleaning it up, and contamination affects the availability
of land for building and other commercial purposes. At Rothamsted, for example,
the main source of industrial funding is from companies involved in mining and
mineral extraction. Both CEH Oxford and Aberdeen University are involved in the
First Faraday partnership between industry and academia, which is
targeted at developing technologies for the assessment, remediation and
management of contaminated land, and transferring these to generate new,
technologically derived business[12].
34. Other significant sources of funding include:
·
European Union
programmes (increasingly important).
·
Other Government
departments, including the Ministry of Defence in relation to contaminated
land. Department for International Development (DFID) funding was significant
until recently, but appears to have declined heavily in recent years.
·
Charities such as
Leverhulme Trust.
Implications
of current soil science agendas
35. Government and international policy appears to be the
most significant driver behind soil research agendas, with wealth creation less
prominent than in other areas of research. But these are only two of the four
key drivers that the AEBC has identified in its wider analysis. What influence
do the other two have?
·
Public aspirations for
science in society
·
Advancing knowledge and
technology and maintaining the science base
36. Public and stakeholder concerns related to soil
science are addressed indirectly through policy needs, which tackle areas of
concern such as pollution, climate change and biodiversity. Our analysis has
not revealed any direct sources of input from the general public into soil
research agendas. This is not surprising, and there is no reason to propose
that public input into the detail of a soil science programme of research is
required. However, at a strategic level it could be argued that the public
should have an opportunity to influence and protect soil science as a
discipline that is fundamental to our understanding of the natural world. Mechanisms do exist for stakeholder (mainly
farming and commercial stakeholder) involvement in setting research agendas,
such as their inclusion on the Boards of Governors of research institutes and
through their input into general policy making on soil (e.g. Defra’s Soil
Action Plan Advisory Forum). But several of the soil scientists we spoke to
felt that the involvement of the wider stakeholder community is limited and
that stakeholder influence on research agendas is minimal compared to that
of Government policy needs and the research councils.
37. The desire to advance knowledge, and scientific
curiosity still drive soil science to an extent, particularly in University
departments. A Soil Science Advisory Committee, made up of scientists from
Universities, Research Institutes, Industry and Funding Bodies was set up in
1995 by BBSRC and NERC, to represent the interests of the soil science
community provide a link between soils research and the main funding bodies[13].
In research institutes, however, several soil scientists told us that the need
to attract Government department funding, and the consequent strong focus on
research to meet policy needs, had reduced the freedom of staff to pursue
curiosity-driven research.
38. New technology is certainly a key driver, as
discussed above. Indeed, some of those we spoke to felt that the great
potential offered by biotechnology (in the broad sense) had not yet been
properly exploited and that work had sometimes been overly focussed on
technological development rather than applications. The drive to discover
more about the hidden microbial diversity in soil comes largely from
disciplines outside of agricultural and environmental science, and regards
waters and soil primarily as gene banks[14]
that may yield biotechnological and medical solutions as well as extend our
knowledge of life strategies and evolutionary processes.
39. A specific interest of this case study was whether
farmers’ concerns are addressed by soil science today, and whether the
redirection of resources away from agricultural questions has had any negative
consequences. There were a number of knowledge transfer programmes in place to
relay findings to farmers. However, there was a general perception that
farmers’ concerns are addressed less directly than previously, and food
surpluses and the decline in the economic importance of agriculture have
reduced their impact. Farmers are still largely focussed on yield and quality
(although CAP reform is changing this), and therefore the change in the
direction of soil science away from these areas has reduced its relevance to
them[15].
40. There are still important agricultural soil science
questions to be answered, and some of the people we spoke to said that there
was a funding gap in this area. With
70% of land in the UK still farmed, farming is important not just for the
agriculture industry but also for land management in general. There is also a
need to approach problems in an international context and look to the needs of
the developing world, if sustainability is to be genuinely addressed. Several
areas of agricultural soil science where more research is needed were pointed
out to us:
·
improved understanding
of soil fertility and nutrient uptake by plants;
·
soil management
strategies for agriculture, particularly for low input and precision production
methods;
·
organic fertilisers and
recycling of crop residues and other organic materials;
·
questions raised by
changing patterns of land-use by farmers e.g. “hobby” farmers in peri-urban
areas in the UK;
·
maintaining funding for
crucial long-term experiments.
41. One scientist said that the gaps identified in
research agendas have not yet had major consequences because the current
generation of soil scientists had a background and training in agricultural
issues and still identified with agricultural uses of land. However, he asked
whether future generations would continue to do so. This brings us to what was
universally agreed by all those we spoke as the biggest problem facing soil
science today: the threat to the soil science base in the UK and the
potential for irreversible loss of expertise.
42. Crudely speaking, soil science comprises three
separate disciplines: soil chemistry, soil physics, and soil biology. In the
past, these have sometimes been too isolated from each other, but good soil
science requires an understanding of all three, and a collaborative,
multidisciplinary approach. The emphasis on biology, and modern biological
techniques, means that younger scientists tend to focus exclusively on
molecular biological methods, and important gaps in knowledge are appearing in
other areas. Soil science degree-level course are increasingly rare, and soil
science PhD positions hard to fill. As a result, many of the soil scientists
who will retire in the next 10-15 years are likely to be difficult to replace.
Soil physics seems to be particularly at risk, but soil chemistry is also
threatened. Despite the strength in soil biology, its outputs may be
constrained by a lack of skilled physicists and chemists, resulting in an
inability to extrapolate results to the reality of the soil environment.
43. In response to these problems, and in order to
stabilise and strengthen soil science in a diminishing funding environment,
BBSRC has established a Cross Institute Programme in Sustainable Soil Function,
at IGER and Rothamsted. There is an aim to increase the collaboration to cover
other, non-BBSRC institutes, including CEH and MLURI, in the future[16].
44. Some of those we spoke to also said that research
funding structures can hinder the cross-disciplinary nature of soil science and
the integrated, multidisciplinary approach required. While BBSRC and NERC
have good links between them, they are not felt to be receptive to
multidisciplinary proposals. They were said to have particular difficulty in
dealing with research proposals that tried to take a holistic, systems based
approach. In addition, some pointed to
co-ordination problems between basic, molecular level science (Research Council
funded) and applied, environmental impact work (Government department funded)
and the lack of a middle ground between the two areas.
Conclusions
45. A UK Soil Research Audit, commissioned by Defra and
SNIFFER[17],
was published in October 2003[18].
The audit concluded that that there had been a decline in fundamental soil
science research, particularly in pedology, soil mineralogy and surface
chemistry. This decline had adversely affected training opportunities for the
next generation of soil scientists. However, future soil science needed to be
multidisciplinary and international in scope, and should aim to become a key
component of wider environmental science issues. It concluded that now was a
time of great opportunity and challenge for soil research because an increasing
knowledge base allowed it to contribute to tackling some of the major
environmental issues, including climate change, pollution and sustainable land
management. Our analysis and the discussions we have had with a range of soil
scientists reinforce many of these conclusions.
46. We chose soil science as a case study topic because
of a perception that we had picked up from some stakeholders that it was in
decline. This is clearly not the case. In fact the research agenda setting
process has been shown to be agile in responding to new challenges and
opportunities. The policy drivers behind soil science have diversified hugely
in recent years. We believe that the expansion in the ambit of soil science
over the last twenty years from agricultural questions, particularly
agricultural production, to environmental issues of global importance, is
necessary and welcome. Coupled with the new avenues opened up by technological
advances, particularly in soil biology, this makes soil science a dynamic,
responsive and exciting area.
47. With finite
resources, no research area can be optimally funded, and it is inevitable that
the greater diversity of the soil science agenda will lead to a reduced
coverage of areas that have benefited traditionally. Therefore, while soil
science has successfully been reconstructed to address a new set of
environmental questions, gaps exist on the agricultural research side. We do
not intend to make recommendations on the relative priorities of agricultural
and other areas of soil science. However, we note that soil science appears
only to be in the early stages of responding to the sustainable agriculture
agenda and that there are some important agricultural soil science questions
that are in danger of being neglected.
48. The redirection of resources in soil science has had
an important and unintended negative consequence for the skills base. The
rapid pace of change in soil science has meant that not enough care has been
taken to protect the full range of soil science skills and expertise. This
problem needs to be addressed in soil science and avoided in future, similar
situations. It is closely related to another issue illustrated by our case
study: the difficulty of successfully fostering the multidisciplinary
approach that everyone agrees is required for soil science, within current
research funding structures.
49.
Research agendas
must be flexible and quick to adapt in the face of changing requirements and
new opportunities. However, change must always proceed with one eye on
protecting the existing skills base to avoid irreversible and damaging loss of
expertise, and ensuring that important existing areas of research are not
neglected.
Annex
1
Soil
scientists consulted for this case study
|
Organisation |
Individuals
consulted |
Main soil research
Interests |
|
Agriculture and the Environment Division,
Rothamsted Research |
Professor Keith Goulding |
·
Biogeochemical cycling ·
Bioremediation and soil protection ·
Soil physics and mathematical modelling |
|
|
|
|
|
Department of Soil Science, University
of Reading |
Professors Peter Gregory and Stephen Nortcliff |
·
Remediation and containment ·
Carbon and energy fluxes ·
Sewage sludge and compost ·
Phosphorus in farm to water system ·
Rhizosphere, from soil and plant point of view |
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental Sciences Group,
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute |
Dr Colin Campbell and |
·
Soil-plant microbial interactions ·
Catchment management |
|
|
|
|
|
Microbial Diversity Group,
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Oxford) |
Professor Ian Thompson |