Sub Groups

Note of First Meeting
13 November 2000
1.00pm, Room 402, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1

THESE MINUTES REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE SUB-GROUP, NOT OF THE FULL AEBC

Present
Ed Dart
John Gilliland
Julie Hill (Convenor)
ChiChi Iweajunwa
Derek Langslow
Roger Turner

In attendance
Anne Packer (Secretary)
Mileva Novkovic

Apologies
1. None - everyone was present.

Agenda item 1 - DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
2. The subgroup agreed the draft terms of reference with amendments:

· "national and international" to be inserted between "future" and "developments" in the first sentence;

· the last sentence to end at "Commission", as dissemination would be for the full AEBC to decide. "Commission" should also be written in full to avoid confusion with the EC.

The agreed terms of reference are attached at Annex A.

Agenda item 2 - WORK PROGRAMME AND FIRST REPORT TO AEBC
3. Transparency of working procedures was discussed. Julie Hill would discuss with convenors of other sub-groups to ensure that the procedures agreed were consistent with those of others groups (ACTION Julie Hill). In addition, the Secretariat would establish how the Food Standards Agency had handled the process for its report on organic foods. (ACTION Secretariat)

4. The following procedures were agreed:

- draft minutes would be sent to sub-group members giving five working days for clearance. They would then be posted on the website with a clear annotation, "THESE MINUTES REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE SUB-GROUP, NOT OF THE FULL AEBC";

- draft reports of the sub-group were work in progress and would not be published until they became a report agreed by the AEBC, unless the group specifically wished to seek views;

- background papers should be available on the website but clearly marked that they did not represent AEBC views.

5. The group would decide on procedures for evidence taking on a case by case basis when it had gained a clearer sense of work to be covered.

6. The main components of a work programme leading to a first report to the AEBC were agreed:

- create a matrix/set of headings in order to lay out the scope of the scan, drawing on personal knowledge and relevant existing research and processes;

- agree a list of relevant existing research and processes on which to draw;

- agree criteria for sifting information so as to be of relevance to the Commission's remit (the matrix (see paragraph 9) would provide a useful starting point);

- compile an outline report using existing research;

- consult with a suitable range of people/ groups to ensure that a realistic view has been taken;

- identify gaps and commission further research as appropriate;

- compile full report for AEBC consideration.

Agenda item 3 - QUESTIONS LISTED IN PREPARATORY NOTE FOR THE MEETING (AEBC/00/SC/1)
7. The group considered the questions listed in the preparatory note.

What the sub group's terms of reference should be
8. See paragraph 2 above.

Which subjects to cover, initially and more generally.
9. Recognising the complexities of the subject area, the group decided to develop a matrix to provide a framework for its work. Suggested headings were - technology developments, implications, relative impacts, responsibility. This would cover aspects such as trends and step changes, benefits, concerns, issues, who regulates, possible regulatory gaps and how to prioritise.

10. Ed Dart would produce an initial matrix with suggested entries, and circulate to others - via the secretariat - by the start of December. Other members would then work on it and send their contributions to Anne Packer by 8 January. Anne would circulate a synthesised matrix in advance of the next meeting. This next meeting would be a brainstorming session aimed at producing a flexible reporting framework for each of the subject areas to be considered in depth. In the meantime, Roger Turner would send Anne a collection of papers for circulation to members to aid to their thinking (ACTION Ed Dart, Roger Turner).

Timeframe for scanning
11. Members agreed it might be useful to consider an immediate horizon along with a more distant one, so as to cover both changes likely to happen and conceivable ones but distant in time.

What might be the elements of the sub-group's work programme
12. See paragraph 6 above. This would be taken forward before and at the next sub group meeting.

How to make the best use of the horizon scanning work of others, including how to sift it for relevance to the AEBC remit
13. The group hoped to form a strategic view which would be of use to a wide range of audiences. Members agreed it was probably not feasible to make a commitment to commercial confidentiality, and in view of the remit of openness this might in any case not be appropriate. This could limit access to information, but other approaches might elicit helpful information on possible developments eg persuading people in industry that it was in their interest to provide information, and asking them for comments on any areas missed in a draft note, and on the conclusions drawn.

14. The possibility of some joint working with HGC's horizon scanning sub-group would be explored. This might be most appropriate for animal modification. The Secretariat would consider areas of shared interest with HGC's horizon scanning sub-group (terms of reference checked, and at Annex B for information). The interface with the FSA would be important and as a first step the Secretariat would establish whether the FSA was undertaking horizon scanning with regard to animal feedstuffs, on which there was an EC consultation. The need to build solid links with the European Commission and beyond was noted. (ACTION Secretariat)

15. The matrix would help the group sift information for relevance to the AEBC's remit.

What the sub-group's working methods should be
16. These would be decided on a topic specific basis rather than in general terms. These might include occasional or regular joint sessions with other similar groups. The Secretariat would develop a list of key contacts. Regular updates of the horizon scan would be needed. (ACTION Secretariat)

How best to tap in to industry developments.
17. The sub group would consider what programme of meetings with other bodies would be logistically feasible, and would develop links and meet key industry figures. Members would find ways of productive working as mentioned in paragraph 13. It might later be useful to consider commissioning a scan of patents from a knowledgeable source (ACTION).

How and when to report the sub group's work in an open and transparent way - this could be as part of an open meeting.
18. See paragraphs 3 & 4.

The timetable for immediate and longer term horizon scanning work, including reporting back to the next Commission meeting in December, and target date for submission of a report to the Commission in 2001.
19. See paragraph 6 for work leading up to first report to AEBC. Estimated that a report should be ready within a year.

20. Julie Hill as convenor would report on progress to the main Commission meeting on 6th December and the public meeting on 7th December, probably as a Powerpoint presentation. Members would have the opportunity to see the proposed report in advance, and to comment.

Next meeting
21. Monday 22 January starting at 10.30am and lasting for most of the day - until 3.30pm. At that meeting the sub group would agree a reporting format and would review for each area: what information there is, how to use it, what is needed, how members will take work forward, being aware of the need to prioritise, and members would discuss the work plan timetable.

AEBC Secretariat
November 2000

[TOP]

ANNEX A

AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

HORIZON SCANNING SUB-GROUP

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To keep the AEBC well informed about current and future national and international developments that are relevant to fulfilling its strategic remit. This will include information on:

- trends in biotechnologies, in agricultural practice and policy, and in environmental issues;
- trends in other technologies, where these may interact with biotechnologies;
- relevant social, economic, legal and political trends i.e. those that will have a bearing on how biotechnology is shaped and how it is received by society.

The work of the sub-group will take into account the work of other bodies with a horizon-scanning role.

The sub group will make regular reports to the full AEBC.

AEBC
November 2000

ANNEX B

AEBC: HORIZON SCANNING SUB-GROUP

Terms of reference of the HGC horizon scanning sub-group are below for information.

The group is chaired by Professor Veronica van Heyningen, Head of cell genetics section, MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh.

To take account of the work of existing bodies with a horizon scanning role that includes a human genetics component. From this body of work, and the expertise of members in identifying important new developments, to:

• identify what the key issues appear to be for the Commission in fulfilling its terms of reference; and
  
• produce a report on these issues for general dissemination and for the plenary session of the Commission to consider.

AEBC
November 2000