AGRICULTURE AND
ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
HORIZON SCANNING SUB-GROUP
NOTE OF A MEETING ON 31 OCTOBER 2001
AT 10.30AM AT ALBANY HOUSE, PETTY
FRANCE, LONDON SW1
Note: These are the views of the
sub-group, not necessarily those of the full Commission
Julie Hill (Convenor)
ChiChi Iweajunwa
Derek Langslow
Roger Turner
Anne Packer (Secretariat)
Tanya Croft (Press Office – for part of meeting)
1. None – all members were present
Previous meeting
2. The draft minutes of the previous meeting had been
slightly revised following comments by DEFRA and DTI on their contributions,
were circulated, and would be put on the website.
The draft
sub-group study
3. Julie Hill suggested that the focus of the meeting should
be the nature of the study, publication/publicity for the study, and
arrangements for the meeting on 6 December.
4. A number of issues of principle had been raised when
the previous draft was circulated to AEBC members, and these needed careful
consideration. AEBC members had
differing expectations of the aim for the document – the breadth and scope of
the task - and hence of its content, and depth of analysis. Some perspectives and information were
currently missing; there was the possibility of seeming superficial without a
full analysis of all relevant aspects, and there might be a need to canvas AEBC
Members in more detail about their views on the draft.
5. Discussing the aims for the study, members considered
its prime function was to flag up issues which the full Commission might want
to consider in more depth in developing the Work Plan. The context for the study was horizon
scanning in agricultural biotechnology, to alert AEBC and stakeholders about
issues coming up; it was an overview of possible developments, with some
comments, without being a description of all work in biotechnology; it was a
source of ideas for AEBC, with aims summarised as in early paragraphs of the
report.
6. Members noted that the paper should be readable and
as short as possible, to enable it also to be accessible and informative to
non-experts in the public. It would
provide a first survey - a perspective identifying some potential developments
that raise issues which AEBC might want to consider in depth later on. There was need for clarity in describing
aims and objectives, about the intended readership, and in defining the type of
scan undertaken.
7. The study would be a scan – in this study it was not
feasible to delve deeply. The study was
intended as a spur to gathering comments and additions from others, and would
be a living document, to be updated after about six or twelve months. An in-depth study could take around a year
longer, would involve considerable research time, and would be a large document
with a different purpose.
8. Members agreed that the current draft needed a
further iteration, and was not ready to be published before the next AEBC
meeting. (It would be among the
background papers available on the web site.)
Members agreed that there were omissions, but in general considered the
draft was making good progress.
9. In discussing the general aims, points made by
members included:
·
The context for the
study was horizon scanning in agricultural biotechnology, to alert AEBC and stakeholders
about issues coming up;
·
An overview of possible
developments, with some comments, without being a description of all work in
biotechnology;
·
A source of ideas for
AEBC, with aims as currently outlined in early paragraphs of the report;
10. The draft would be revised in the light of comments,
set out the group’s remit, describe the aims and uses of the paper, and explain
that it sought feedback. It would be
sent to group members again for quick comments before the draft went to all
AEBC members for discussion in December, to debate the next steps. Members discussed strengths, weaknesses
and ways of filling gaps.
11. Strengths: some points made were:
·
The current draft was
readable and informative – serving a useful function in identifying the
enormous range of activity.
·
Level and length seemed
about right; the bibliography was good and could be added to. It worked well as a paper to promote debate;
·
It was already quite
long and should not become longer;
·
The draft could be
developed to provide the coverage and balance needed
·
Since there was an
enormous amount of work going on, which would continue, AEBC needed to be aware
of this;
·
The study provided a
way of engaging with the public and informing public debate;
·
The open ended nature
of the paper recognised that AEBC did not have all the information, and invited
feedback and contributions.
12. Weaknesses: some points identified were:
·
The current conclusions
section could be supplemented or changed into a note for AEBC suggesting possible
areas for future work;
·
The secretariat and
convenor would consider what should be included in this section: perhaps
without any conclusions as such, but with a list of issues raised for AEBC, to
form the basis of a paper to the Commission, or it could pose questions.
·
Currently the text was
weak on hopes compared to concerns, and the annex might be balanced the other
way.
13. Gaps: some gaps identified were:
·
The draft had a UK
rather than international view, and should be less insular
·
The draft should cover
the work done on scenarios.
·
The draft needed more
on social aspects
·
It should draw out the
nub of the issues more clearly from the appendix
·
Some further references
should be added for people to study issues in further depth if they wished to.
14. The AEBC
discussion meeting on 6 December would be open to members of the public to
observe. Members concluded that the
discussion would be within the Commission rather than with invited commentators
on this occasion, as Commission members needed to have the opportunity to
discuss the function and form of the report in the light of points recently
raised. Options for a subsequent
meeting could include discussions with a group of invited people, though this
format might require longer than two hours to provide an effective forum for
full discussion without people feeling that they had not had full opportunity
to debate issues. Further options might
include conversations around a series of questions with groups of members of
the Commission meeting people separately or in groups to discuss their views on
future work priorities for AEBC.
15. Members discussed the future role for the group. This would depend on the outcome of
discussion in December and the package of activities that would follow on. The group could either continue in
existence, meeting only occasionally, or an ad hoc group could be formed to
revisit the subject after some months to review developments and update AEBC. A
number of members preferred the former option - individual preferences were
noted.
16. Julie Hill welcomed Tanya Croft from AEBC press
office to the meeting and explained the previous discussions and
conclusions. The full Commission would
discuss options in December for active engagement following that meeting. As well as informing the Commission’s future
work, the study would provide a useful resource for lay people as a source of
information. Tanya outlined some
preliminary views on possible options for reaching a range of groups of people,
including those in the 18-30 age range, and said that she would send sub-group
members some proposed options by 2 November, for their consideration, with the
emphasis on new and different ways of engaging with people.
17. Members also discussed the possibility of future
possibilities for interactive work on the web-site, and noted that this was
certainly an aim, but one which needed targeted and costed propositions.
18. Tanya updated members on discussions about a possible
debate early in 2002. Sponsorship was
an issue which the full Commission might want to discuss, and there were no
definite proposals for an event as yet.
19. Members went through the draft text making
suggestions about the drafting of individual sections of the current
draft. These were discussed and noted
by the convenor and secretariat.
20. The secretariat, with the convenor, would revise the
draft study, based on the discussions at the meeting, and would circulate the
revision around 14 November to sub-group members for quick comments.
21. Members arranged two further potential dates for
meetings, to follow up discussions at the next full AEBC meeting. These were Tuesday 22 January and Tuesday 19
February 2002.
AEBC Secretariat
November 2001
