7 – 8 July 2004
THE MACAULAY INSTITUTE, CRAIGIEBUCKLER, ABERDEEN, AB15 8QH
Members
Julie Hill
Anna Bradley
Helen Browning
Dr David Buckeridge
Dr David Carmichael
Professor Phil Dale
Dr Derek Langslow
Professor Keekok Lee
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer
Dr Paul Rylott
Justine Thornton
Dr Paul van Heyningen
Tonima Saha
Dr Patrick Erwin
Craig Johnson
Pat Wilson
Emma Knox
A transcript of this meeting is at Annex A
1. The Deputy Chair opened the meeting by welcoming all and expressing the Commission’s pleasure at being in Aberdeen. She thanked Jeff Maxwell for his help with arranging the meeting and thanked Maggie Gill, Director of the Macaulay Institute, for her generous hospitality.
2. Apologies had been received from Dr Ed Dart, Dr Matt Freeman, Professor Robin Grove-White, Judith Hann, Dr Rosie Hails and John Gilliland.
3. The Deputy Chair reported that John Gilliland’s campaign to become a Northern Ireland MEP had been unsuccessful, however he did receive a very impressive share of the votes. John would be continuing as a member of the Commission. He had sent his apologies for his absence, which was due to him collecting his OBE.
4. Commission Members’ comments on the last meetings minutes had been incorporated.
5. The accessible guide to the AEBC, Biotechnology and Farming, had now been printed. Members had all been sent a copy and the secretariat would be sending it to stakeholders. More copies were available from the secretariat should Commission Members have anyone else they wished to send them to.
6. Professor Grant had given evidence to the Efra select committee on May 24 as part of their subcommittee’s enquiry on the GM Planting Regime, which was concentrating on coexistence. The subcommittee’s report was being published on 8 July.
7. A review of research funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) relevant to Crop Science was published in April. Among other things, the review recommended that BBSRC should develop a strategy for research on non-food uses of crops and should establish a national plant-breeding initiative, in partnership with other funders, to promote public-good plant breeding.
8. FAWC report on the Welfare Implications of Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Agriculture was published on 30 June. In line with the AEBC’s recommendation in Animals and Biotechnology, FAWC recommended that a non-statutory Standing Committee should be set up to evaluate new and existing breeding technologies as well as consider the welfare and ethical problems arising from livestock breeding programmes. FAWC advised that the Committee report to them and that it could be known as FAWC Animal Breeding Committee (FAWC ABC), with its reports being published as FAWC reports. A formal response to the AEBC from FAWC, along with CAWC (Companion Animal Welfare Council) and APC (Animal Procedures Committee) was expected soon.
9. The Treasury was expected to announce its 10-year Science and Innovation framework on 12 July, at the same time as the Spending Review 2004 announcement.
10. The Deputy Chair introduced paper AEBC/04/10, an update from Defra and the Devolved Administrations on the progress of work that was of interest to the AEBC.
11. Members welcomed this communication and agreed that it was a helpful way to be kept up to date on what the government was doing. It was suggested that this could be enriched in future if Members could ask for any clarifications in advance of the meeting and if Defra and the devolved administrations included a session on issues that they would like to raise with the Commission.
12. The Deputy Chair then asked Sue Mayer from the core group working on the Research Agendas project to provide an update on progress.
13. Sue explained that there were 3 main areas the group were working on. Firstly, the work on a public and stakeholder engagement exercise had progressed. This was along the lines of a reference group type approach as had been established for the Animals and Biotechnology work – the first group would be lay members of the public, and the second would be some “hard to reach” stakeholder groups including working scientists and farmers/land managers. There was some discussion over the third stakeholder group. Retailers had been considered but in the end it was likely to be those who were involved in giving advice to land managers.
14. The Chair then outlined that the format of the meeting would be to ask each guest to talk for a few minutes on some overall themes and then for members of the core group to ask a few questions. The second half of the session would be general questions from the whole Commission. The Commission would then have their own discussion after having heard from all of the guests.
15. The Chair then introduced Mike Foulis, Head of the Environment Group in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD), asking him in particular to cover how research agendas were set in the biotechnology area, and some idea of the work of the Agricultural Biological Research Group and Environmental Research Team.
16. The main points covered by Mike Foulis in his introduction and subsequent questions from the core group are outlined below. A full transcript of the dialogue is available at Annex A.
17. The Agricultural and Biological Research Group (ABRG) fund £43m p.a. of research. About 85% of this was used to support its 8 Research Institutes, with the remaining 15% allocated to a ‘flexible fund’ for ABRG to purchase the necessary research. Maggie Gill clarified that SEERAD core funding went direct to Research Institutes but that they could apply competitively for the Flexible Fund monies as well as directly to some Research Councils.
18. As with Defra, research was mainly driven by policy but SEERAD also had a responsibility for sustaining the science base in Scotland and was more closely linked to economic development objectives.
19. Research agendas were also driven by the Research Institutes themselves whose missions were to a significant extent the responsibility of the director and their boards.
20. The existing SEERAD research strategy identified five end user categories: sustainable agriculture: livestock; sustainable agriculture: crops; food, human health and nutrition; the environment; and bio-industries. Research was aimed at addressing one of these themes, and funding for near market research had been stopped in 1980.
21. A new strategy was being developed, in which there would be a trend of shifting away from production-related agricultural research towards more environmental sustainability-related research. It was likely to suggest taking a more strategic approach to the identification of priorities and to Commission work.
22. Ministers set the overall strategy and the institutes were then responsible for delivering their role as set out in the strategy. Evaluations on 4-year cycles ensured the quality of the research and the Flexible Fund budget was also carefully managed.
23. The strategy review process had highlighted some areas for improvement suggesting that the current system could be improved. In the past the definition of ‘policy relevant research’ had been set by those conducting the research rather than the policy people, but this had improved and they were now a more demanding customer and making better use of the outputs from research.
24. An important driver was evidence-based policy making. There was a need to be more strategic about this and identify themes when buying in research to meet policy needs. There was also a need for more interdisciplinary research, including social-science elements.
25. The traditional policy development process was the mechanism for taking policy considerations into account, and there was quite an active engagement with all the relevant interest groups.
26. In contrast to the comments at the last AEBC meeting where it had been suggested that the Ag-Biotech industry was dominating research in this field, the situation was different in SEERAD where it had been difficult to engage with this community.
27. The Chair then introduced Dr Alistair Carson, Project Leader in the Science Service within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), based at the Agricultural Research Institute Northern Ireland (ARINI), Hillsborough, and also a member of staff at the Queen's University of Belfast. The Chair asked him to describe the agenda setting process in Northern Ireland, and explain how this was changing as a result of the O’Hare report.
28. The main points covered by Dr Carson in his introduction and subsequent questions from the core group are outlined below. A full transcript of the dialogue is available at Annex A and his presentation is available at our website www.aebc.gov.uk.
29. The overall aim of the Department was sustainable economic growth in the countryside, and then there were 4 strategic aims: to improve the economic performance of the agri-food industry; to protect the public, owners and property; to conserve and enhance the rural environment; and to strengthen the economy and social infrastructure of disadvantaged rural areas.
30. The current structure of the Department was outlined (see presentation) but it was noted that this would be changing over the next couple of years. The Science Service aimed to support the strategic and policy aims of DARD and assist the sustainability of the Northern Ireland agri-food industry.
31. Technology transfer was a high priority and those in the DARD science service had a multi-functional role, with those involved in research being directly involved in technology transfer. (Dr Carson described technology transfer as getting information from researchers to the end-users, through open meetings or more directly.)
32. The current process for research agenda setting was outlined. This involved at the first stage a project leader initiating a project, and consulting with stakeholders. A project proposal would then drawn up, including a socio-economic assessment. This would be passed to the Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) and then the relevant policy division, before going back to the CSO for final assessment.
33. In 2001 the “O’Hare” Review of research and development, education and technology transfer was conducted. This found, amongst other things that there was concern over the nature of the customer-contractor relationship in research, industry representatives wanted a stronger voice in R&D programmes, and there was a need for greater transparency.
34. A number of changes would occur as a result of this review, including:
· a new central decision making process and an Independent Expert Advisory Committee established. The Board would work within the framework set by DARD policy and Members cover a range of expertise. It was likely to have responsibility for consultations.
· a customer-contractor relationship between DARD and the universities, a competitive bidding process for DARD funded research, and researchers to lose their university links
· the Science Service to become a free standing NDPB, to be known as the Agricultural Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), also incorporating ARINI.
35. The new system would involve: the policy division inviting comments from other DARD divisions and the Independent Expert Advisory Board; then a draft strategy circulated to all Departments before being submitted to the Minister for Agriculture; the IEAB then would consider the strategy with the Rural Stakeholders Forum; Ministers would agree it and policy divisions set up the programmes; regular review and monitoring was included.
36. O’Hare had recommended that technology transfer remain within the research institutes, but the Government response concluded that this would be the primary responsibility of the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise, which would remain within the DARD structure.
37. It was possible the new system could lead to problems of short-termism. It was also felt that it would be difficult for researchers to influence the research strategies from the bottom-up.
38. The NI Department for the Environment worked closely with DARD and a service level agreement would be established with the new agricultural institute to undertake the necessary work.
39. The Chair then introduced Professor Margaret Gill, Director of the Macaulay Institute and member of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee.
40. The main points covered by Professor Gill in her introduction and subsequent questions from the core group are outlined below. A full transcript of the dialogue is available at Annex A and her presentation is available at www.aebc.gov.uk.
41. The Research Institutes were ‘mission driven’, (unlike universities) and the Macaulay was aimed at research into management of rural resources for the benefit of people and the environment. This required a particular skills set and there were 17 socio-economists at the Institute.
42. The strategies of the Research Institutes were determined by SEERAD’s overall strategy, and science from the Macaulay fed into development and delivery of policy. End users were very important in respect of policy implementation and it was the role of the Director to translate the end-users’ needs into the strategy.
43. There were a number of factors/drivers to take into account when setting the agendas: the mission of the institute, the skills set in the organisation, work of other Research Institutes and other bodies in the UK, global drivers (including EU regulations and climate change), end-user priorities and pressures from the public. It was also noted that Institutes would be judged not only on their quality of science, but also on their success with knowledge transfer and their end-user relevance. Individual scientists also had a degree of freedom to set their own questions within the confines of the priority areas the Macaulay set itself.
44. The importance of working with other Institutes and Universities, to create internationally significant Centres of Excellence in various disciplines, was highlighted, especially given the relatively small science base in Scotland.
45. Macaulay had a designated person working on their end-user strategy, but those in the relevant parts of the funding environment also engaged with end-users, as necessary.
46. Multi-disciplinary working was difficult and was an iterative process that needed to be targeted to appropriate areas. Being based on the same site was helpful in bringing people together in this respect. There was a balance to be made between getting people to work together to get the added value of multi-discipline work, and giving scientists enough freedom themselves. The concept of an inter-disciplinary centre the Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability was being discussed with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Banchory.
47. Research had to serve multiple functions in terms of feeding into wealth creation, quality of life and policy. It was felt that the Scottish Science Committee did not fully appreciate the importance of policy as a driver, with too much focus on wealth creation. The mechanisms for establishing the Committee were perhaps not as effective as they could have been in getting the right balance of representation on the Group.
48. In terms of future mechanisms for such advisory committees, it was suggested that:
· There was a need to get the right balance of representation
· There was a need for a variety of research providers, from applied through to blue-skies work
· A clarity of purpose between different organisations was needed and the environmental research funders forum was a good example of a mechanism to achieve this.
· Partnership working was important at a range of different levels
49. The Chair then introduced Professor John Hillman, Director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI), and asked him for his views on the research agenda setting process in Scotland and his experience as a Director of a Research Institute.
50. The main points covered by Professor Hillman in his introduction and subsequent questions from the core group are outlined below. A full transcript of the dialogue is available at Annex A and his presentation is available at www.aebc.gov.uk.
He felt there were seven (interacting) drivers of agricultural biotechnology research:
· Technological advances
· Existing knowledge and resource base
· Public sector curiosity
· Market drivers (academic, policy, and commercial)
· International programmes and funding mechanisms
· Regulation
· Political and public attitudes
The balance between these was constantly changing and largely dependent on the vision for agriculture. Supermarkets also had a significant role to play.
51. Research had previously been curiosity and wealth driven, but since 1997 had become more based around monitoring and control, with increasing disinvestment from large ag-biotech companies. Among other things, this had led to problems with retention and recruitment of staff.
52. It was felt that, although there were official visions for agriculture and much public money was spent in this area, there was concern over the technological and economic vision. Agriculture was not seen as the thriving industry it could be. There had been market distortion and there was a need to bring in innovation.
53. SCRI was driven by SEERAD strategies and it discussed its plans with the ABRG. It was felt that the commissioning dialogue worked well. In addition to commissioned research, SCRI also bid to open competitions. It also had its own business plan, corporate plan and performance indicators guiding its work. A priorities board had ceased to exist and there was now limited contact with BBSRC.
54. There was a role for broader engagement and the SCRI employed a full time education officer at the institute and held open days and websites etc to communicate with their stakeholders and the public.
55. Plant breeding in particular was seen to be in poor condition. SCRI was breeding some ‘orphan’ crops, but these were expensive. However there was a great deal of public good to be achieved through plant breeding.
56. Soil science had declined in the 1970’s with the closure of the main research institute, but had been reinvigorated again in the late 1980’s with the creation of new ‘super institutes’ and development of new research techniques.
57. Cross-disciplinary work had enabled biotechnology to break through to new areas such as the health and clinical markets
58. It was felt that the UK’s influence was declining rapidly in the developing world. There was a need to actively consider how ag-biotech would be funded and how it would impact the world at large.
59. The Chair then introduced Dr Donald Bruce, Director of the Society, Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland and asked him for his views.
60. The main points covered in his introduction and subsequent questions from the core group are outlined below. A full transcript of the dialogue is available at Annex A and his presentation is available at www.aebc.gov.uk.
61. The main drivers for GM were felt to be technological advancements, and commercial opportunities. Policy gave the primary reason for research as wealth creation but Dr Bruce thought that it needed to be more focused on quality of life and environmental needs in order to generate the sort of wealth we were aiming for.
62. There were a number of public concerns associated with these issues: ethical and ideological questions about agriculture, perceived risks etc. The shift from public to private research in this area, and the lack of knowledge of research that was being carried out had led to the lack of public confidence.
63. GM Nation? showed that there was a longing for more independent information about the issues and a body which could provide such research was needed. There was a mismatch between the science and public perception of it in this area, which suggested that current systems were not working effectively. It was unclear whether the system itself needed change or just perception of it.
64. Public engagement should focus on the areas of public concern and needed to explain the context, with some degree of education about the issues. Public acceptance was affected by issues like familiarity, trust in the organisation, and control in the short term. In the longer term public awareness and transparency was needed.
65. There needed to be a system involving expert scientists and feedback from the public where views/ideas for research could be ‘tested’ against public opinion. It was also felt that more mechanisms needed to be in place to address social and ethical concerns.
66. Dr Bruce explained his role on a number of ethical committees, including the BBSRC committee on public concerns. With responsive mode funded projects, he said that projects were usually accepted by the committee on a scientific basis, but there was a potential for including more fundamental ethical questions about research in the decision making process. BBSRC was thought to be working quite hard in terms of public engagement, but there was more to do, as its culture was still science focused.
67. Ethical assessment of both core funded and responsive research in Institutes and in Universities was variable and it was questioned whether the appropriate people were on the relevant committees.
68. The Scottish Science Advisory Committee was meant to be looking at science in society in Scotland but in practice it was felt that it was focused on academic excellence and wealth creation. He did not believe it had provided a mechanism for taking on board public attitudes, but could do so in the longer term.
69. The Chair thanked all the speakers for their presentations and then opened up the discussion to the rest of the Commission. The main points raised are summarised below and a transcript is available at Annex A:
70. Policy needed to plan ahead and look for example at the EU directives that might arise in a few years time and ensure the relevant blue-sky research was carried out to meet future needs. Northern Ireland policy and associated research attempted to reflect the current agricultural situation but also tried to lead and set future direction. The research-policy interface and communication was key.
71. It was felt that since1997, EU environmental directives had been taken more seriously, which may have contributed to the shift towards more monitoring/regulation driven research.
72. There had been somewhat of a shift from research for production towards sustainability-based research. This was a more difficult challenge for research. Some felt that some useful science had come out of this shift, e.g. the farm scale evaluations and a blossoming in ecology research more generally.
73. There was some discussion about the decline in public sector spending and some felt it was having a serious effect on Institutes and Universities. Others felt that Scotland previously had more core funding than the rest of the UK, which was why there was a perceived decline in funds. Mike Foulis said that Government had increased research budgets but it was difficult to point to the outcomes of this. It was suggested that private sector funding in ag-biotech was still there globally but had moved from the UK.
74. There was some discussion over the role of the public sector in wealth creation. John Hillman felt that in a healthy economy, a system where the private sector pays for research from which they derive benefits works well. However, industry could not support long term research e.g. plant breeding projects. Market failure was also a driver. Donald Bruce asked whether, if public funds supported basic research, it should not also support companies that build on that research on the grounds of economic benefit to the UK. There was a need to take on board points from the end-users early on to enable wealth creation later.
75. Maggie Gill stated that the Macaulay produced knowledge rather than products per se. SEERAD was funding knowledge transfer activities from the Research Institutes to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that could not afford to do their own research. It was felt that institutional arrangement were good for looking at long term research, underpinning research for crucial industries, and public good research.
76. There was some discussion over the technology push and the customer pull. John Hillman felt that the balance between technology push and customer pull was dependent on the subject area as well and there were differences between the UK and international situation.
77. The Commission asked whether the various institutes, Departments and Universities were joined up. In response, the guests felt that although there was a level of competition, there was more partnership now than ever before at programme level due to the need for value for money and a more holistic approach. There were also some mechanisms for collaboration, e.g. the Environmental Funders Forum, although more awareness was needed of these.
78. Public views were felt to be multi-attitudinal and people’s opinions often differed from their actions as consumers. Donald Bruce gave sex selection and foetal ovarian research as examples of how public engagement had successfully affected policy decisions, but said it was difficult to find examples from agricultural biotechnology.
79. The Chairman thanked the Guests for their contributions and invited the Commission to hold an internal discussion on their reflections from the day. Sue Mayer asked particularly for any comments on the immediate workplan, any key issues that should be covered, and any gaps in the evidence. The key points from the discussion are summarised below with a full transcript available at Annex A.
80. It was felt that few examples had been given of real engagement with the public (as opposed to stakeholder engagement).
81. Public engagement was often talked about in a negative connotation, (i.e. effectively asking what don’t you want us to do”?) and this presented a negative image to scientists about public engagement.
82. Policy was an important driver but was relatively short-term focused. It was important that public engagement asked about aspirations for the future and their sensibilities. It was also important that public engagement was not just focused around technology, as people did not generally relate to this. Dialogue with the public should be held in language which they understood and should enable them to describe things in their own terminology
83. A more relaxed engagement and greater level of trust was required. Some felt that if science was undersold, there were suspicions of hiding information; whereas over-emphasis of potential benefits at an early stage could lead to accusations of ‘spin’.
84. Interesting tensions had been highlighted between policies being led by the technology push versus goal led policies, and the research agendas workstream could usefully explore these issues.
85. The choice of case studies would usefully highlight the differences between the level of private research in public institutes in basic, strategic and applied research.
86. The Commission felt that they still did not really understand how the research agenda setting system worked and where decisions were made. The systems seem complex with a mix of high level drivers filtering down and bottom-up influences. There might be better clarity once the information gathering paper had been completed.
Thursday 8 July
88. The Chair welcomed everyone to the reconvened meeting and explained that they would begin with the one item that was left over from the previous day, a discussion on the Commission’s draft workplan.
AEBC Workplan – Paper AEBC/04/12
89. The Chair explained that the secretariat had received only minor comments on the draft workplan and they would be incorporating these. Members agreed to the content of the draft workplan.
90. The Chair invited David Buckeridge, the Champion of the non-food agriculture core group, to update the Commission on the progress of the non-food agriculture workstream.
91. David Buckeridge updated the Commission on the Core Group’s progress, making the following points:
· The core group last met on 7 June 2004 and all Commissioners should have received the minutes of the last core group meeting. The papers were also on the Commission’s website.
· At this meeting the core group agreed to a framework for the regulatory analysis, agreed a draft work plan and finalised a TV pitch document. The core group also agreed that it should use early engagement with relevant experts to select case studies.
· The Commission had agreed to focus the workstream on three areas: biofuels/forestry, bio-plastics and bio-pharmaceuticals. Within each of these areas one or perhaps two case studies would be selected for detailed regulatory analysis. These case studies would aim to identify gaps in regulation and make assessments of whether the pertinent regulations were fit for purpose. They would also identify regulatory and policy interactions and implications.
· At the Core Group meeting on the 7th it was agreed that at today’s session the Commission should aim to better inform itself in the forestry area and select the specific case study. The core-group proposed to select specific case studies on bio-plastics and bio-pharmaceuticals at core group meetings between July and September.
92. David then went on to explain that on the possible TV programme the core group had tapped into Judith Hann’s expertise in this area and had prepared a TV pitch. Along with Patrick from the secretariat they had met Richard Riesz from TV 6, a TV production company who had made programmes for the BBC and Channel 4 like Horizon. TV6 thought that the pitch contained lots of interesting ideas but a single TV programme would only be able to cover some of them. They were interested in trying to take this forward but were keen to stress that the concept would be difficult to sell and that the interactive part was useful as it would be interesting to broadcasters and would help sell the idea. TV6’s first thoughts were that the idea was unsuitable for an issue of Horizon but a good fit for a Panorama or Dispatches format. TV6 were thinking about this and would be making some initial approaches to commissioning editors (to start with in the BBC) at the end of July.
93. The next core group meetings were pencilled in for 19 Julyand for the afternoon of 23 August; the secretariat would confirm these when speakers had been arranged.
94. The Chair then welcomed the guests: Dianna Bowles from the Centre for Novel Agricultural Products in York, Kevan Gartland from Abertay University, Stephen Woodward from Aberdeen University and Robert Webb from Clark McTavish Ltd., and thanked them all for giving up their time.
95. The Chair explained that Dianna had been asked to give the Commission an overview of the role biotechnology would play in non-food agriculture, then to give her views on potential case studies in each of the three sub areas we had identified (Biofuels/Trees, Bioplastics and Bio-pharmaceuticals). Kevan, Stephen and Robert had each been asked to give the Commission their views on the role biotechnology would play in the future of agroforestry / biofuels and then their ideas about what the Commission could choose for a detailed case study in this area. The second section of this session was planed as an open discussion with the guests and the whole Commission. The principle aim being a discussion to decide upon a case study for detailed regulatory analysis in the biotechnology and trees/biofuels topic.
96. The Chair then introduced Dianna Bowles.
Ø The main points raised are summarised below and a transcript is available at Annex A:
97. Dianna Bowles gave a general presentation looking at the role biotechnology may play in the development of non-food agriculture. Her presentation started with a summary of the range of non-food crops, examples included flax for fire oils, seed crops for biofuels and tress for wood, paper etc. She noted that, in general, plants could make complex compounds in a single step, where producing the same compound synthetically might require a number of factories.
98. She then talked about some specific examples:
· Artemisia a Chinese plant that could be grown in the UK which was the lead candidate for the next generation of anti-malarial drugs.
· Starch as a cheap feed stock for a wide variety of products.
99. Dianna then gave a brief summary of biotechnology and genetic modification: biotechnology-DNA technologies allowed the identification of genes that gave rise to proteins (often enzymes) which produce a given product in plants. She then went on to explore the potential of these techniques, particularly GM, to increase the utility of non-food agriculture, with the following points and examples:
· Enzymes were often better catalysts than inorganic compounds, and could often be extracted from (GM) organisms. It was also possible to use GMOs only in a processing stage in a to process non-GM feedstocks, thereby keeping the ‘GM stage’ in a closed environment like a fermenter.
· For relatively high-value, low-volume crops (products) e.g. pharmaceuticals, GM/transgenic plants could be grown in closed green houses which meant that you are dealing with a contained use which minimised potential environmental risk.
· The production of nutraceuticals e.g. DHA which was an important component in our diet currently found in oily fish. Fish got it from eating blue green algae. The genes for making DHA could be transferred to an oil seed crop to provide an alternative and potentially more sustainable source of DHA. Dianna also highlighted a recent EU Framework programme 6 award of a €21m grant for this type of work: this was headed by nutritionalists and clinicians, not plant scientists.
· High–value, low-volumes crops: the use of glandular hairs on plant cells as “sustainable factories” to produce complex compounds complex chiral chemicals, medicines, flavours and fragrance.
· High-volume, low-value crops: as oil becomes more expensive alternatives were going to be needed. GM and non-GM plants have great potential for replacing petrochemical feedstocks.
· Each of these applications had its own risk=benefit analysis so a case-by-case approach was needed in assessing them.
100. Dianna went on to talk about the commercialisation of non-food agriculture. She noted that the chemical and pharmaceutical industries were increasingly the driver in this area; although there were still problems with the unnecessary entrenchment of standards for feedstocks that were acting as a market barrier to agricultural feedstocks, with their inherent variability. Public acceptability was clearly an issue. Dianna thought that the large-scale cultivation of GM crops in the UK and Europe was unlikely for the moment but GM crops would become more acceptable for high-value, low-volume products like pharmaceuticals, probably in contained use. The widespread cultivation of GM non-food crops in the open was likely to be unacceptable in Europe and the UK although genomics would potentially help speed up breeding of new varieties. Developing crops without GM would be slower, meaning that other counties including the US and in Asia were likely to gain a competitive advantage over time.
101. Dianna reminded the Commission that fossil fuels were also derived from plants and were the “the products of ancient sunlight”; moving away from fossil resources to non-food agriculture was moving towards using today’s sunlight rather than ancient sunlight.
102. Dianna finished her presentation with a suggestion for a case study: using GMOs in closed fermenter-based systems isolated from the environment to process non-GM feedstocks, which might be highly bred plants. This would allow several products to be created from each feedstock and isolate use of GMOs from the wider environment.
103. The Chair thanked Dianna for her presentation and asked for any quick questions.
104. Dianna was asked if she thought the Commission had got the focus of the workstream right. Dianna agreed that focusing on the regulatory morass and public acceptability was appropriate.
105. The Chair then introduced Professor Kevan Gartland.
Ø The main points raised are summarised below and a transcript is available at Annex A:
106. Kevan opened his presentation with the following points:
· 30%+ of the world’s land area was covered in trees.
· Trees acted as catalytic converters for the plant.
· Timber use in the EU was rising by about 3% per year but the area under forestry had not increased by anything like this rate.
· The EU forestry and forest products sector was currently worth €228 Bn per year and looked after 3.7m jobs (before enlargement). However, simply because of availability of sunlight, economic forestry was shifting towards the tropics where growth rates of 15-30 times that in the EU were achievable.
· The environmental impact of forestry was generally much less than agriculture – you only had to turn the land over once if at all and you did not have to do as much weed control.
· Targets for forest biotechnology included: improved wood quality, understanding stress and pathogen responses (see www.drastic.org.uk an Abertay and SCRI Collaboration) and understanding forest ecosystems and the biosphere. Tools for doing this included advances in tree genomics, tissue culture, somatic embryogenesis, research on propagation and rootability and GM.
107. Kevan gave the following examples of potential future forestry products:
· Low lignin trees for making pulp and paper, Vincent Chain from North Carolina had produced Aspens with 55% less lignin than normal, which represented a big saving to the pulp processing companies. There were concerns that low lignin trees would fall over or rot faster – there had been no evidence for this and it appeared that the lower lignin was compensated for by other structural polymers.
· High lignin trees for power generation with enhanced calorific value e.g. from 80% of that of coal to 120%.
· Trees bred to produce “smart papers” for photography, IT, identity preservation e.g. banknotes with a genetic marker.
· Citrus generation time reduced to 1 year from 7 using the Apetela 1 gene, which would also speed up breeding of new varieties etc.
· Edible Vaccines from trees e.g. diarrhoea vaccine in bananas
· Dendro-remediation of environmental pollutants - using trees to clean up pollution (e.g. petrochemical or metallic contamination of soils) by either breaking them down or accumulating them in their structures.
· Combating pests, pathogens and diseases, particularly as new pathogens introduced from different parts of the world and new hosts were introduced for existing pathogens i.e. non-native trees.
IFB Heritage Trees Program, the impact of the loss of heritage trees can be measured in many ways: monetary loss from devastation of economic species, biodiversity loss and its eco-impacts, loss of aesthetic value, but the loss of opportunity for future generations is boundless, biotechnology research offered the potential for restoring species and damaged landscapes
108. Kevan then gave the following examples of existing forestry products.
· Aspirin which although was now produced synthetically was originally produced from Willow extracts
· Taxol the Anti-Cancer Drug produced from Yew trimmings
· Benecol, the margarine that contained 12% Stanol Esters from pine which reduceed Cholesterol by <15%
· Sunset GM Papaya Virus Resistant
· Tea Tree Oil which was an antiseptic and fungicide extracted from the Australian Melaleuca alternifolia.
· Biomass willow and poplar – which he commended as a case study
109. Kevan then talked about tree diseases coving the following: Sudden Oak Death – Phytophthora ramorum, Chestnut Blight – Cryphonectria parasitica, Alder DieBack – Phytophthora, Frasier Fir – Fungal & Adelgid Pathogens, and then in more detail about Dutch Elm Disease – Ophiostoma novo-ulmi, some of his own research.
110. Kevan then talked briefly about ongoing problems including:
· EC Directive 2001/18 and the restrictions that it placed on the release of GMOs, which many feared, could severely restrict research in forest biotechnology.
· Genetic “terrorists”: of the 5 field trials in the UK, the last 3 trials had been destroyed, one of which involved the destruction of female-only clones “to prevent them producing pollen”
· Spread, stability and gene stacking Issues where continuous monitoring would be needed.
Search for additional Anti-Fungal Genes
111. Kevan concluded his presentation with a request from his Vice Chancellor to remind everyone that Abertay was the best rated university in Scotland for environmental research – with the same RAE rating as York making Abertay fifth in the UK.
112. The Chair thanked Kevan for his presentation and asked for any quick questions.
113. Kevan was asked to expand on his recommendation for a case study, he explained that it had great benefits because it grew quickly in almost all UK locations and that it was underdeveloped i.e. there had been comparatively little selective breeding of willows and poplar compared with other crops.
114. The Chair then introduced Stephen Woodward
Ø The main points raised are summarised below and a transcript is available at Annex A:
115. Stephen started his presentation with some examples of non-GM biotechnology being looked at by his laboratory and department. These include:
· Understanding plant responses to environmental cues and stresses, including abiotic stresses – water logging/drought; temperature; pollution; soil salinity and biotic stresses – resistance/susceptibility to pests and diseases. This research would lead on to understanding plant gene function as a response to stress.
· Advanced breeding techniques to determine inheritance of desired characteristics for use in breeding programmes. Using techniques like AFLP/QTL and marker-led selection.
Understanding functionality of biodiversity: application of molecular tools to determine diversity of microbial populations and use of marked micro-organisms to determine distributions/ fate in phyllosphere[1] / rhizosphere[2]
· .
· Understanding mechanisms of wood degradation, which was important for the paper and pulp industry similarly for bio-pulping applications. Sitka Spruce (common in the UK) was valuable for this application (c.f. Norway Spruce common in much of Europe) because it had a relatively un-coloured pulp and therefore required less bleaching.
· Development of Enzyme-driven ‘adhesives’ for particle-board manufacture, for example using Lactase to de- and then re-polymerise lignin to glue board together, substituting for formaldehyde based adhesives.
116. Stephen then talked about some of his research into resistance of Spruce to Root and Butt Rot Disease caused by Heterobasidion annosum, which was responsible for massive economic losses to the forestry industry and was the most significant cause of decay (and death) of gymnosperm trees in north temperate forests. The fungus was a problem in managed forest where it entered through stumps and then was transferred to neighbouring trees via roots. Stephen explained that he was looking at a number of fungal resistance mechanisms, including the role played by secondary chemicals (e.g. stilbenes) and the regulation of lignin synthesis, lignin being an “amazing” barrier to the growth of fungi.
117. Stephen then spoke about his work on the diversity of soil-borne pathogens in forest ecosystems, in particular ‘natural’ Scots pine forests. Some of the questions he was trying to answer were: What fine root pathogens are present in forests? What is the function of the pathogens in the rhizosphere? How do the pathogens interact with other rhizosphere microorganisms? This work was important because fine root turnover is important in the carbon cycle and soil-borne pathogens seemed to play an important role in weeding out weak roots.
Stephen concluded his presentation with his recommendation for a case study: resistance to diseases in forest biomass plantations. He explained that the most commonly grown biomass trees in the northern hemisphere were poplar and willow. One of the major restrictions on yield was the rust diseases (Melampsora spp.). Rusts had very high impact on yields and there were currently no economically viable and reliable methods for control.
Once rust was established in a plantation the only solution was to replace the entire crop with a new resistant clone, however as with any monoculture this provides an excellent environment for rusts to select overtime to overcome this resistance. Although some success had been found by planting several different clones in a given plantation to make it harder for rusts to select. Developing new, more robust, resistance mechanisms presented potential for high returns on investment
120. The Chair thanked Stephen for his presentation and then introduced Robert Webb.
Ø The main points raised are summarised below and a transcript is available at Annex A:
121. Robert started his presentation by explaining that he was coming form a different perspective than the other speakers, coming from a typical forestry SME. His presentation focused on Clark MacTavish limited experiences of trying to bring a range of chemical extractives from forestry products to market. Robert went on to explain that Clark MacTavish was a Cumbrian SME with three employees, its core businesses were estate management, grant acquisition, and environmentally sensitive harvesting techniques. It was characterised by an innovative culture and its diversity of business. When they came across the idea of taking extractives out of bulk foliage they saw an opportunity and set up as sub-business called Folionics to try and exploit it, identifying 8 or 9 potential products from the process.
122. They saw potential in coniferous extractives for a number of reasons including a large sustainable feed stock (there being now shortages of conifers in Cumbria), diverse markets (pharmaceuticals, animal feeds, nutritionals and antimicrobials), a very simple extraction process, no toxic intermediates and no waste stream.
123. They saw opportunities: with potentially large markets (particularly with nutritionals and animals feeds), a simple local supply chain, potentially high margins, an environmentally friendly product and the opportunity to create local employment.
124. In developing these products Robert explained that they had come up against a number of barriers, the principle one being legislation. For most of their potential products the legislation was such that it was impractical for a small SME to even try and get them to market. For the remaining products, for example a plant growth stimulant, they have found the market to be extremely conservative with retailers showing little interest in novel products. Other problems included the cheapness of competing petrochemical feedstocks as well as development costs, which they have funded by grants and resourced by working outside normal hours.
125. Robert went on to explain what they were doing now: essentially trying to find the best market and a way to get the product to market through targeted dissemination and networking, grant acquisition – although this was set to get harder with the accession on the new member states, developing intellectual property rights, profit recycling and product development.
126. Robert made the following conclusions.
· Take advice
· Get sponsorship
· Intellectual property rights
· Network
·