AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
NOTE OF SIXTEENTH MEETING ON
14 MARCH 2002
DTI, 151 BUCKINGHAM PALACE
ROAD
Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission
Ms Anna Bradley (convenor)
Ms Judith Hann
Dr Matthew Freeman
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Richard Abel (AEBC Secretary)
Mileva Novkovic (AEBC Secretariat)
1. Ben Mepham (who had sent written comments), Michael Banner and Helen Browning had sent apologies.
Letter from British Poultry Council
3. The British Poultry Council had written to Anna Bradley enclosing a copy of a survey produced for the industry in January 2002, “An analysis of an Industry National Broiler Chicken Leg Weakness Study in the United Kingdom”. Some important points made in the letter would be taken into account in the draft report and the Secretariat would review the evidence gathered by the group on poultry breeding. The sub-group was aware that FAWC had helped set up the survey and asked for comments on the survey to be sought from both FAWC and DEFRA.
Action: Secretariat
MORI report
4. MORI had reported on the third reference group workshop and produced a methodology assessment for the initiative as a whole. Having reviewed this, the sub-group decided to ask MORI to revise the section on process to make clear that the presence of sub-group representatives at that workshop and its impact on participants had been a planned and essential part of an innovative process. The sub-group expected the report to describe the state of the reference group’s views before and after engagement with the sub-group as well as describing that engagement.
Action: Secretariat
Further consideration of the draft report in light of
discussion at March Commission meeting
5. The sub-group discussed its draft report in
light of comments made at the AEBC meeting.
In general, some re-ordering of material was agreed within a slightly
adapted structure which the group would consider again after the Secretariat
had made the necessary revisions. In
addition, running top of page headings would be added to indicate which section
each page came under. It was hoped this
would aid readability of the report. On
a further general point, the sub-group decided that a consistent standard
should apply to all research used by the group as evidence i.e. it should be
peer reviewed properly. The Secretariat
would establish what progress had been made with the peer review process
discussed with Phil Macnaghten in November.
Action:
Secretariat
Development of public attitudes work (part 3.4) and findings from reference group and linking of these to other parts of the report
6. The AEBC had asked the sub-group to develop
the way in which the results of the public attitudes research were used in the
draft, particularly in part 3.4. As a
way into the task, the sub-group had then asked Phil Macnaghten and MORI to
provide a précis of the results of their respective work for discussion at the
sub-group meeting, and this had proved a useful approach. Having considered each précis, the group
reaffirmed that it would be important to make clear the differences in nature
and in process between the Macnaghten research and the MORI work. Overall the sub-group would need to be clear
about the factors underpinning public acceptability of biotechnology elicited
from both pieces of work and also present them clearly in the draft report.
7. It was agreed that part 3.4 would be restructured around the material contained in the first three sections of the digest in the Macnaghten report. The conclusions (page 13, Macnaghten report) would be drawn on in the main body of the text of the AEBC report.
8. The sub-group’s thinking for deciding against a regulatory new strategic body, while the reference group was in favour of such, required careful description. The analysis should begin with the principles of good regulation, which were accepted across Government, produced by the Better Regulation Task Force. The draft should make clear to Government that research commissioned by AEBC (Macnaghten’s, supported by MORI’s in this case) had highlighted the lack of trust in public institutions and the need for public debate and openness.
Companion animals: extent to
which they should be covered in the report
9. Having concentrated on agricultural animals and developments which had a major potential environmental impact, the sub-group was not in a position to cover pets in the same depth. However, given that the AEBC’s role was to give strategic advice, particularly where there was no comparable body with a remit, and that the same biotechnology techniques were being applied to different kinds of animals, including companion animals, it made sense to cover pets in the report. The sub-group thought that the proposed strategic body should keep a watching brief and ensure that companion animal issues were being given appropriate attention.
Coverage in report of APC and use of animals for medical research
10. The sub-group reviewed the basis for stating that it was content with the way in which A(SP)A and the APC worked. This had been on the basis of clear evidence received from a number of different parties. Since the vast majority of animals under the aegis of A(SP)A were being used for medical research and this was not in AEBC’s remit, the sub-group had not looked in great detail at the decision making process within A(SP)A. The sub-group was clear that the structure was adequate for the next period providing bigger strategic decisions could also be handled satisfactorily. It occurred to the group that the real issue here might be transparency. This would be reflected in the revised draft of the report.
11. With regard to the issues of numbers of animals used for experiments, the sub-group understood that the APC had a statutory duty to consider numbers of animals used in each experiment but not numbers used in experimentation overall. This was another function that would fit best with the new strategic body.
Question of treatment of 'integrity' of animals
12. Treatment of ‘integrity’ in the report would be enhanced by interweaving material from the results of Macnaghten’s research. Ben Mepham’s suggestions with regard to illustrating how the concept was recognised in European law would be adopted. Discussions of ‘integrity’ in the report should avoid using words that the majority of readers would not understand.
Ordering of conclusions in executive summary
13. The sub-group agreed to try a new format for the executive summary but reserved judgement as to whether they would finally adopt it. It would fall into two sections: the first beginning by saying that the regulatory and advisory structure should command confidence, dealing with biotechnology in a broader context, and containing the report's main recommendations; the second including detailed recommendations.
Strengthening arguments for new strategic body
14. This version would give prominence to the principle of ‘no double standards’ vis a vis conventional and biotechnological applications. This would go hand in hand with the need to ensure public confidence that the machinery was capable of handling biotechnology appropriately, and that a spotlight was needed on biotechnology applications because people had particular concerns about these. Underpinning all of this would be clarity that it was the justification for biotechnology that could make individual applications acceptable.
Recommendation on research monies for other bodies
15. Section 6 of the draft report should be revised with a view to getting the tone and balance right. Comments sent to the sub-group by the AMRC would be taken into account. Particular care would be taken to ensure that statements about research agendas taking account of public views were realistic. This section would also note public cynicism about commercially oriented research and the implications of this for acceptability of GM, using Lord Selborne’s statements to the OECD Conference in Bangkok in July 2001.
AOB
16. Jeff Maxwell reported back on the meeting he had had with Professor Lance Lanyon, Dean and Principal of the Royal College of Vets, who had been representing the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The report would draw on the RCVS evidence to the Foot and Mouth Inquiry in England about the role of the State Veterinary Service. A copy of the draft report would be sent to the British Veterinary Association, another professional body, for its views.
Action: Secretariat
17. The sub-group reaffirmed its request to Judith Hann to develop a shortened, more readily digestible report for its consideration. This was an experimental project and would be produced during May.
Action: Judith Hann
Next steps and future sub-group meetings
18. The Secretariat would produce the next draft and circulate it to the sub-group before Easter. Sub-group members would be asked to letter him have comments by 8 April for incorporation into a version to be sent to the whole Commission for comment by 16 April at the latest. The sub-group would meet for an hour (1.30-2.30) after the next extraordinary AEBC meeting on 18 April to discuss AEBC comments. The final version would go the AEBC Cardiff meeting (9-10 May). The sub-group would have a short meeting at 11.30-12.30 on 9 May, before the AEBC meeting.
AEBC Secretariat
March 2002
