AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

ANIMALS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY SUB-GROUP

NOTE OF FIFTEENTH MEETING ON 15 FEBRUARY 2002

DTI, 151 BUCKINGHAM PALACE ROAD

Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission

Present

Ms Anna Bradley (convenor)

Ms Judith Hann

Dr Matthew Freeman

Professor Jeff Maxwell

Professor Ben Mepham

Richard Abel (AEBC Secretary)

Mileva Novkovic (AEBC Secretariat)

Apologies for absence

1.      Michael Banner and Helen Browning had sent apologies.

Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising

2.      The minutes were agreed.

Report back from the Third Reference Group Workshop

3.  Anna Bradley, Matthew Freeman, Malcolm Grant and the Secretary had attended the third reference group workshop on 2 February.  The objective had been to test out the sub-group’s emerging conclusions with the reference group.  The main points arising were:

• a majority of the reference group had been surprised and disappointed that the sub-group planned to recommend a new strategic advisory body rather than an overarching regulatory body.   Anna and Matthew had explained the relative merits and de-merits of recommending in the report a regulatory or advisory body.  The reference group wanted confidence that the new body would be listened to by those working in the field.  They did not believe that an advisory, rather than regulatory, body would not be listened to by Government or those working with animals.  They were also concerned that it should be resourced adequately, and whether funding would be made available to implement its recommendations.  They were further concerned that EU and WTO rules might prevent its recommendations being implemented.  They wanted it to be accountable, and that it should have a membership that would inspire public confidence that the body would act independently.  The sub-group agreed that these concerns should be addressed clearly in the draft report;  

• the reference group took the view that independent experts in the relevant disciplines were the right people to be on the new and existing advisory bodies, and other bodies, so long as these people could; and,

• the new body should be well connected to the public.  Members of the reference group would welcome a body that sought to provide more and better, jargon-free information about developments relating to animals.

4.  The use of a reference group was an innovation which the sub-group believed had proved its worth.  Outcomes from the workshop would be incorporated into the sub-group’s draft report.  MORI would include an assessment of the methodology in its report on the workshop.  The sub-group would use this as a basis for further reflection and prepare a paper for the AEBC on how such methods and models could be used by AEBC in future and more general lessons learned about the way in which the sub-group had gone about its work.  Subject to AEBC’s view, this would be addressed after the next AEBC meeting on March 6/7. The secretariat would provide a first draft for the next sub-group meeting on 14 March. 

Action: Secretariat

5.  The secretariat would also obtain a first draft of the MORI workshop report for Judith to see as she drafted her shorter version of the report which the sub-group would consider on 14 March. 

Action:  Secretariat

Draft report

6.  Detailed drafting points were made which Richard Abel would incorporate into the next draft.  Among the substantive points made in discussion of the draft report were:

• the introduction, particularly para 4, should be strengthened to bring out more clearly the innovative features of the sub-group’s work and how these had been received by stakeholders;

• part 3.3, on present and future biotechnology applications relating to animals, should be slightly adjusted to strike a value-free tone in relation to claims and counter-claims about the applications;

• the current section on public attitudes in part 3.4 underplayed the importance of Phil Mcnaghten’s work in relation to Glynis Breakwell’s and the Eurobarometer surveys.  This imbalance would be corrected.  The report should also distinguish more clearly the respective purpose of each of the research projects and refer more fully to the range of public views on modern biotechnology which the Macnaghten study had brought out.  This section should also refer to the analysis of public attitudes to modern biotechnology in Crops on Trial;

• the title of part 3.6 would be revised to ‘emerging findings’ and the section would be strengthened by re-ordering the paragraphs.  The conclusion that there should be no double standards between applying modern biotechnology to animals and other processes which can lead to similar, positive or negative, outcomes was central to this section;

• part 5.3, on monitoring and enforcement, should refer to current enquiries into the handling of the Foot and Mouth epidemic which it seemed likely would make recommendations about the State Veterinary Service.  The forthcoming meeting between Professor Maxwell and Professor Lanyon, Principal and Dean of the Royal Veterinary College, would provide a further opportunity to discuss part 5.3.  The sub-group again noted that its proposed machinery would not work unless enforcement became more effective than it had been hitherto;

• part 4, on the regulatory framework, should highlight the fact that questions in relation to modern biotechnology are more urgent and sensitive because of the speed and nature of changes to animals made possible by modern biotechnology, which are not otherwise possible by conventional techniques.  This meant that the regulatory system needed to shine a stronger spotlight on biotechnology.  But the purpose for which an application is being carried out, whether it by conventional or modern biotechnology techniques should be assessed similarly.  This section would also include reference to the recently announced cloned cat;

• part 5, para 116, would clarify the meaning of “2 normal lifespans” under A(SP)A and whether this applied to both GM animals and non-GM clones;

• the precise membership of the strategic advisory body would not be prescribed.  The new body should have among its membership or within its easy reach the necessary expertise; and

• a point of consistency needed consideration: the onus for demonstrating safety in respect of GM crops rested with the supplier.  In relation to GM animals, it could be judged that the onus should be on the industry.

Recommendations

7.  The subgroup decide that the following were the major recommendations which should be included in the executive summary:

(i)         The new strategic advisory body – this was to be called ‘Animals Council’;

(ii)        Funding and public attitudes;

(iii)       1911 Act update;

(iv)       post-commercialisation monitoring of cloned animals;

(v)        FAWC (put on a statutory footing);

(vi)       CAWC (to be made an official, non-statutory body); and

(vii)      Making research money available to advisory bodies

The executive summary should also reflect the logic of the report and the principle that there should be ‘no double standards’ for modern biotechnology.

Next Steps

8.  The Secretary would send a revised draft report to sub-group members for comment.  The draft would then go to the whole Commission in advance of circulation of papers for the March AEBC meeting so that members could highlight any major issues for discussion in advance of the meeting.  A further revised version would go to the Commission with meeting papers for the March AEBC meeting on 26 February.

Future sub-group meetings

9.  The next sub-group meeting would be on Thursday 14 March.

AEBC Secretariat

February 2002