biotechnology commission (AEBC)

	Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)
	Meetings

		Home

		About us

		Reports

		Meetings

		Sub groups

		Contact us

		Site map

EIGHTH COMMISSION MEETING
5 - 6 DECEMBER 2001
ONE GREAT GEORGE STREET, LONDON SW1

MINUTES

Papers

AEBC 01/20 Animals and Biotechnology draft report

(155Kb)
AEBC 01/21 Future Work and Meetings

(29Kb)
AEBC 01/22 Draft Horizon Scanning Study

(266Kb)
AEBC 01/23 Possible Future Work for the AEBC Public Attitudes Group

(10Kb)
AEBC 01/24 ‘New wine old bottles?': A Discussion Note

Present

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Rev Professor Michael Banner
Ms Anna Bradley
Ms Helen Browning (6 December only)
Dr David Carmichael
Professor Philip Dale
Dr Ed Dart
Dr Matthew Freeman
Mr John Gilliland
Professor Robin Grove-White
Dr Rosie Hails
Ms Judith Hann
Dr Derek Langslow
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer
Professor Ben Mepham
Ms Justine Thornton
Dr Roger Turner

Secretariat

Mr Richard Abel
Mrs Anne Packer
Ms Mileva Novkovic
Mr Chris Hepworth
Mr Andrea Bovolenta

Officials also present

Judy Britton, Office of Science and Technology
David Williamson, Scottish Executive
Liz McCullough, Department of Environment, Northern Ireland
Penny Bramwell, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Glenda Townsend, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
George Noble, DEFRA (5 December)
Jon Richmond, Home Office (5 December)

THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Apologies for Absence

1. Apologies had been received from Chi Chi Iweajunwa for both 5 and 6 December, and from Helen Browning for 5 December.

Introductory matters

2. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming members of the public who had come along to observe the Commission’s proceedings.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

3. Members’ comments had already been incorporated into the unconfirmed minutes. These were now confirmed as a correct record and would be posted as such on the AEBC website.

Matters of Report

‘Crops on Trial’ Report

4. The Chair and Deputy Chair had met the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, on the morning of 5 December. Mr Meacher had indicated that Government generally welcomed the AEBC’s recommendations in ‘Crops on Trial’ and was preparing to respond positively. Government was likely to seek further advice from the AEBC on public consultation in connection with decision-making about commercialisation of GM crops. The Chair and Deputy Chair expected to have a further meeting to discuss this and other issues with Mr Meacher soon after publication of the Government’s response.

Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE)

5. Members had been copied into an exchange of letters between the Chair and Professor Alan Gray which confirmed their commitment to an open and positive approach between the AEBC and ACRE to working on matters of common interest. Dr Jules Pretty of ACRE had subsequently written with details of the work on assessing environmental impacts which was being undertaken by one of ACRE’s working groups.

Draft report on the regulatory framework for animals and biotechnology (AEBC/01/20)

6. The animals and biotechnology sub-group had prepared an outline first draft of a report on animals and biotechnology (AEBC/01/20), building on agreement about the sub-group’s emerging conclusions reached at the September 2001 Commission meeting. Introducing the report, Anna Bradley said that the sub-group had consciously tested out their developing thinking with stakeholders and the public reference group. As agreed by the Commission, they had held a stakeholder seminar in November and this had attracted good attendance from a wide range of interested parties. Stakeholders at the seminar had found the process curious and interesting: some had looked for detailed justification for the sub-group’s emerging conclusions but had found that the group was working in a different way, testing out its thinking before all aspects of it were fully formed. The seminar and subsequent discussions with stakeholders had provided the sub-group with very useful further information and had been taken into account in the sub-group’s thinking. The sub-group felt the process had been justified and commended it to other AEBC sub-groups.

7. The sub-group had also taken evidence from DEFRA officials. The sub-group had heard that DEFRA had initiated a review of general animal welfare legislation and planned to embark on a process of public consultation early in the New Year. This chimed with the conclusion the sub-group had come to earlier about the need to update the legislation in this area.

8. The sub-group had also met the chairs of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). The sub-group had discussed in particular the emerging recommendation for a new strategic advisory body to look at issues relating to animals which were common to farm, companion and research animals. The sub-group had concluded that the new body they were recommending should be non-regulatory and should not duplicate the work undertaken by the existing Government advisory bodies, FAWC and the Animal Procedures Committee, both of which were operating effectively. The existing advisory bodies should continue to report to Government as they did now. The sub-group had also concluded that Government should be invited to consider establishing CAWC on a similar basis to FAWC. The sub-group would undertake further research on any implications of modern biotechnology for sporting animals.

9. Representatives from the public reference group recruited by MORI had made a report to the sub-group about the sub-group’s emerging conclusions. Dr Phil Macnaghten had presented his final report on the qualitative social research he had undertaken for the sub-group in relation to contemporary UK public attitudes towards animals and biotechnology.

10. The draft report was very much a work in progress and needed considerable further work. In particular, the sub-group had not concluded its discussion on the treatment of ethical considerations in the draft report.

Discussion

11. Members noted the progress made by the sub-group since the last AEBC meeting. They welcomed the sub-group’s open way of working in developing the report and were particularly pleased that a range of stakeholders, including industry, were being consulted.

12. In discussion, members identified the following major areas requiring further development:

ethics and the decision-making framework. A discussion of ethics was critical to underpinning the report’s recommendations, and together with a section discussing the findings of the public attitudes research, would be essential in relation to the rationale for a new strategic body;
an in-depth discussion of the public attitudes research. This section needed to bring out more clearly the subtleties of public attitudes to biotechnology developments in relation to animals and the different aspects of people’s relationships with animals. The social research undertaken for the sub-group had highlighted the tensions within public attitudes towards animals, for example the recognised contradictions between people’s relationships with companion animals and their tolerance of animals used in an instrumental way for medical research or food. It also suggested, among other things, that most people regarded the direct genetic modification of animals as both ‘new’ and ‘unnatural’; and that although few people rejected the use of the technology out of hand, they had concerns about the pace of developments, the degree of intervention and precision involved and the anticipated likelihood and believed its use should be based on genuine and authentic need. The AEBC report should seek to examine how public opinion was likely to react to future developments in biotechnology;
the rationale for the recommendation for a new strategic body. The Commission noted that there was no proposal that the new strategic advisory body would have a regulatory role. Some members thought that this could have implications for its effectiveness. The rationale for the body should encompass the wider matters related to ethical considerations and the public attitudes research discussed under the two bullets above. The sub-group also needed to set out clearly the added value the new body would bring to the existing arrangements. A new body could increase public confidence that the issues raised by technological developments would be examined in the broad context of the different relationships society had with animals so that there was a consistent approach in the different sectors of animals use and so that nothing fell in the gaps between the present arrangements in the future. It could seek to improve public information and consultation;
the section in part 3 on ‘applications relating to animals’ should be expanded and should give a clearer sense of the time scales for different applications of the technology and what was likely to be contentious in future. Public attitudes research material should be used to offer a more rounded picture in terms of the issues raised by the new applications;
economic aspects. It would be important to show that the economic implications of the report’s recommendations had been fully understood, for example seeking to regulate the livestock industry in the UK more stringently than elsewhere in Europe;
environmental aspects. The sub-group needed to draw together the several environmental threads running through the report. Some further evidence gathering would be required;
the tone of the report. Some members suggested that this should be adjusted so as not to lead to misinterpretation of the report as presupposing an entirely instrumentalist view of what could be done with animals. It was thought in this context that ‘Animal Uses Committee’ was not a suitable name for the new strategic body.

13. The Commission considered a number of specific points in the draft report:

Part 3

it was noted that mutagenesis was not generally used in the production of farm animals;
the drafting in paragraphs 13 to 16 of part 3.2 (method and scope) needed to be sensitive to the fact that social research did not purport to give answers but clues, which were for the AEBC to consider along with other evidence. It was also important to distinguish between the qualitative research done by Lancaster University and the work of the MORI Reference Group;

Part 4

the Secretariat would circulate again to members Professor Breakwell’s report on existing research on public attitudes to biotechnology and animals;

Part 6

the first bullet under paragraph 109, about the remit of the new strategic body, should be amended to reflect the fact that ethical principles already underpinned and informed the current regulatory arrangements It was agreed that this body should be advisory and not regulatory. Some Commission members thought the new body should have a role in developing ethical principles for the regulatory system. The drafting of this point would be further informed by the discussion on ethics scheduled for the forthcoming sub-group meeting;
it was agreed that it was important that FAWC retained a single role and focus and that it would be better to avoid overburdening the body with competing requirements, particularly environmental or macroeconomic issues. FAWC worked effectively in relation to farm animal welfare. The question of whether FAWC was statutory or not was not central to its effectiveness;
the Commission discussed the principles behind the division of responsibilities within Government and whether responsibilities for sponsoring the farming industry should in principle reside within the department also responsible for farm animal welfare. Members agreed on the whole that a pragmatic approach would work best at present, having noted that if this was an issue for animal welfare, then there might also be said equally to be an issue in relation, say, to sponsorship of agriculture and responsibility for the environmental aspects of GM crops, for both of which DEFRA was also responsible. It would be illogical to recommend separation of responsibilities for one not having recommended the same for the other. This issue would be couched in the report as an important point of principle but the precise terms of any recommendation flowing from it would be considered again by the whole Commission;
the Commission noted that the Food and Farming Policy Commission’s remit was limited to England, because agriculture was a devolved matter;

Part 7

this section should avoid the inference that publicly funded research was necessarily good research and privately funded research otherwise. The report needed to be more specific as to where market failure arose. Agricultural and general biotechnology research budgets (paragraph 137) needed to be disaggregated;
the report needed to be more specific with regard to the aims and objectives of the proposed new funding. Thought should be given to what role the new strategic body might play in directing such research monies;
this section might also usefully refer to intellectual property rights in relation to the breeding of farm animals.

Audience for the report

14. The principal audience for the report was Government. It would be good, however, if the findings of the report could be publicised in ways that appealed to a wider audience than that of Government, including different opinion formers and the wider public in addition to the key stakeholders already consulted. A shorter more digestible version to sit alongside the main report would be useful. It was noted that the purpose of the animals and biotechnology reference group run by MORI was to ensure that the report remained relevant to the concerns that reference group members had articulated at the outset and the group could be used to test out a shorter version of the report. It was agreed that Citigate would draft the shorter version. The drafting of the press release to accompany the report should be undertaken in good time to allow the Commission sufficient opportunity to agree it.

Next steps

15. In the light of the discussion with the Commission, the sub-group would in particular develop the analysis of public attitudes towards animals and develop the ethical context and decision-making framework chapter. The sub-group would submit a revised draft of the report to the Commission with a view to the Commission reaching agreement in correspondence on as much of the text as possible before the next Commission meeting. The aim would be to have a discussion around any remaining outstanding issues with the launch of the report to take place soon thereafter. Citigate would develop a launch strategy.

AEBC draft study on horizon scanning (AEBC/01/22)

16. Introducing the draft study, Julie Hill, the convenor of the sub-group, invited discussion on two main aspects. First, the implications of the study for the further development of the AEBC’s work programme. The study was intended primarily to make the full Commission aware of the wide range of work underway in biotechnology research, and highlighted developments of possible agricultural and environmental significance in the UK. This should inform the basis of a revised work plan for discussion at the AEBC’s meeting in March 2002. Second, how to use the study externally, to stimulate discussions with stakeholders and the public. There were a range of options for doing so, depending on the target audiences.

Discussion of options

17. Members could see some merit in developing a number of documents for different audiences to serve different purposes, but concluded this would be too resource intensive. There was nevertheless a wish that the material gathered in the study should be made available as a public document to help wider audiences gain a picture of developments in biotechnology and their implications for agriculture and the environment. There were, however, inherent difficulties: updates soon became out of date and providing an exhaustive analysis would in effect comprise the AEBC’s entire work programme. Publishing the study as the basis for an interactive internet debate was attractive because it could engage stakeholders as well as lay people who did not have a specialist NGO or Government perspective and might encourage people to send the AEBC updated and new material. If updated regularly, the study would also provide a ready-made information source for sub-groups.

18. In terms of the content of the study, it would be helpful if likely future changes in the structure of the industry, regulation, public attitudes and how the market was likely to develop could be incorporated more fully. This should be both in relation to the UK and internationally. The estimated timescales for development of the applications of the technology should as far as possible be included in the annex to the study.

19. If the main purpose of the study was to inform the AEBC’s future work programme in a more systematic way than hitherto, the advances in the technology needed to be interpreted more fully and in a balanced way in the narrative section of the study (part 4), particularly in the section on issues raised by the technology and should be coupled with information about public attitudes. Members favoured developing part 4 of the study so that the technological developments and their implications were more directly related to a discussion of future work plan priorities. In taking this forward, the sub-group would take into account the following suggestions from Commission members of possible future areas of work: liability issues, on which the AEBC was already working; competitiveness of the UK biotechnology and agriculture industries in the WTO and EU context; the impact of UK and EU decisions on development and implementation of the technology elsewhere in the world; the balance between public and private research; and long-term changes in patterns of land use, including alternative crops.

20. In conclusion, members agreed that the horizon scanning study should remain primarily an internal document, to inform the next iteration of the Commission’s work programme. The Commission therefore would discuss the revised study alongside a draft revised work plan at its next meeting, in March 2002. In the light of that discussion, the Commission would consult stakeholders and in due course submit a revised work plan to Ministers. The sub-group and secretariat would consider other possible options for using the information in the study, such as an interactive internet debate and brainstorming with stakeholders, bearing in mind the resource implications. The secretariat would also give further thought to how to regularly update the study and more generally how to improve capturing and utilising information relevant to the Commission’s work.

Public attitudes developmental group (AEBC/01/23)

21. Robin Grove-White introduced his note (AEBC/01/23). The public attitudes developmental group had had an informal discussion over breakfast earlier that day about the broad approach which might be taken to public consultation on commercialisation of the GM crops involved in the Farm-Scale Evaluations, on which it was expected that Government would seek further advice from the AEBC.

22. There was considerable interest among policy-makers, social researchers, learned societies and scientific organisations in improving public understanding of scientific issues and in public consultative techniques. The sub-group would work with these bodies in developing draft advice. It could be that in due course experience of consultation on GM crops would be of wider applicability to other areas of policy.

23. A number of innovative approaches could potentially be employed, such as using science cafes, museums, literature and science festivals, citizens’ juries and so on, in addition to qualitative and quantitative social research. The sub-group would examine a variety of techniques. It would also look at which bodies might carry out the consultation, the balance between local and national activities and how best to use social researchers to analyse public responses to the consultation. It would be important that the exercise was effective, but the sub-group would bear in mind the resource implications of what it proposed.

24. In the discussion, members welcomed the group’s proposals for taking this work forward. Members encouraged the group to draw on the considerable methodological expertise which existed already. It was noted that the questions or options which formed the basis of the consultation on commercialisation of GM crops would require careful formulation. It would also be very important that the Government’s purpose in undertaking the consultation exercise and the use that would be made of the results were clearly understood from the outset.

25. It was agreed that the public attitudes group would prepare proposals for discussion at the Commission meeting in March.

‘New wine, old bottles?’ (AEBC/01/24)

26. The Commission discussed Phil Dale’s note (AEBC/01/24) about Robin Grove-White’s recent article, ‘New wine, old bottles? Reflections on the new biotechnology commissions’. Robin Grove-White agreed with Phil Dale’s summary of the points raised in the paper apart from two points. First, there was disagreement rather than ‘lack of clarity’ in respect of what the controversies are about (point 2, bullet 1); and second, NGOs seek to engage in the science not because they believe the real issues to be exclusively scientific but because this is the only language of debate used by decision-makers and so the only way for the NGOs to enter the debate (point 2, bullet 2).

27. In the discussion which followed, the point was made that people handled ‘unknown unknowns’ all the time in everyday life. But people assessed such unknown unknowns not always in terms of a pure risk assessment but in a wider context, taking account of a variety of factors. In respect of new technologies, one way to address the potentially paralysing effect of unknown unknowns was to have a regulatory structure that acknowledged their existence and framed policy accordingly, taking explicit account of wider factors and drawing on a wider range of opinion than simply expertise on assessment of the technical risks. If in addition the advice was given and decisions made as openly as possible, this could increase public confidence in the regulatory system.

28. Members thanked Phil Dale for his helpful note and welcomed the opportunity to discuss and better understand the different perspectives of Commission members which it, and Robin Grove-White’s article, illuminated.

Work programme and future meetings (AEBC/01/21)

29. The meeting had before it a paper from the Secretariat (AEBC/01/21). Members agreed that it was important to be seen to work in different parts of the United Kingdom and not always work in London, but that the locations should be chosen to fit in as far as possible with the Commission’s topics of work. For practical reasons, it made sense to meet around twice yearly in London. It would also be useful for members to have the option to combine Commission meetings outside with visits to institutes or places relevant to agricultural biotechnology, although diary pressures meant that not all Commission members could spare the time for such visits. There would also be merit in sub-groups holding meetings around the country where this would be of value to their programme of work, particularly in interacting with stakeholders and the public. It was also useful when sub-group meetings took place either side of Commission meetings because this cut down on the time members spent travelling. It was further agreed that the March 2002 meetings would be held in London and the May meeting in Cardiff, with one other meeting in 2002 being held in Scotland.

30. The Commission asked the Secretariat to draw up detailed plans for sub-group and main AEBC meetings for the year ahead on the basis of the points made in discussion, paying particular attention to the need for the AEBC to interact effectively with stakeholders and the public, along the lines set out in Anna Bradley’s paper, which had been circulated with AEBC/01/21.

31. The Chair said that a number of members had spoken to him about their preferences for membership of sub-groups and developmental groups of the Commission. The Secretariat would issue a revised list of members of these groups in the light of these comments. Roger Turner had agreed to convene the consumer choice developmental group.

Any other business

Sponsorship

32. Citigate reported that they had explored the possibility of sponsorship from a national newspaper of an AEBC public debate in 2002. The newspaper would provide publicity and raise the profile of the event, which would be billed as a joint AEBC/newspaper event. The AEBC would be responsible for organising the debate and selecting the venue, format and speakers. Members were generally content that this specific proposal be pursued by Citigate and the Secretariat, although some concerns were raised about the general question of sponsorship: not all outside bodies would be suitable. It was agreed that opportunities such as this would be considered on a case by case basis. The Chair asked the Secretariat to circulate the Cabinet Office guidance on sponsorship to members by way of background.

DEFRA biodiversity research project

33. Rosie Hails, the convener of the ad hoc group of Commission members assisting DEFRA with this project, said that DEFRA had issued a second iteration of the research project specification taking account of comments from members of the ad hoc group and from some other Commission members.

Liability sub-group

34. Justine Thornton, the convener of the sub-group, reported that it had had discussions with the British Society of Plant Breeders on 5 December and would be having informal discussions with DEFRA officials on 6 December. The sub-group would then hold meetings with the European Commission and stakeholders in Brussels in January.

35. The Chair closed the meeting and thanked the members of the public who had attended. He hoped they had found the meeting interesting.

AEBC Secretariat
December 2001