Note of Research Agendas Group meeting, 1^st September 2004

 

Attendees:

Matthew Freeman (Chair), Sue Mayer, Phil Dale, Helen Browning, Rosie Hails, Keekok Lee, Jeff Maxwell, Paul van Heyningen, Tonima Saha

 

 

Discussion on Research Agendas Information Paper (Ref. Paper RA3.1)

 

1. It was agreed that the paper that had been produced was a useful catalogue of information that should be retained in some manner. However, it would now also be necessary to condense the information into a more easily digestible format and include some analysis and observations.

 

2. The accompanying tables and graphs were also very useful and further use of these should be made in the analysis stages. This should include comparative analysis of spend between different organisations and also a look at the split between directed and responsive research.  It was noted that qualitative analysis would need to be included in addition to the quantitative work.

 

3. The initial four questions of the workstream would provide a useful structure around which to focus the next steps of the analysis. Currently information was available to begin to address the questions 1)What are the drivers behind agricultural biotechnological research agendas and how are they balanced?; and 2) What mechanisms exist to ensure public attitudes and aspirations and government policy priorities are taken into account when research agendas are set?

 

4. A tabular, matrix-based approach looking at funders and drivers could also be used to help think about the available information.

 

5. When considering drivers of research, international competitiveness in science and the financial/historical commitments of institutions should be included.

 

6. It was noted that most of the drivers identified in the Information Paper seemed to be set by Government and there had not been much evidence of public attitudes as a driver.

 

7. It was agreed that in addition to the Information Paper, a short paper should be produced which would include a summary of the contents of the Information Paper, but also an analysis and observations on the information. Attempts would be made to produce a draft version of the short paper in time for the full Commission meeting at the end of September as this would be more accessible than the long paper and would help to stimulate discussions at the meeting.

 

Action – Members to send their initial thoughts and observations on the information paper, including over-arching and specific comments, to the secretariat as soon as possible for incorporation into the analysis paper.

 

Action – Secretariat to produce a draft of the analysis paper in time for circulation for the September AEBC meeting (by 14 September)

 

Action – Secretariat to fill in gaps and omissions in long information paper before the paper is finalised

 

Action – Secretariat to send to members the Food Ethics Council’s draft ethical audit of agri-food research paper and the Defra/FSA/ BBSRC/NERC Joint Code of Practice for Research.

 

 

Discussion on public and stakeholder engagement exercise (Ref Paper RA 3.2)

 

8. It would be important to explain to the contractors running the exercise that a balanced set of questions should be asked and these should be very open in the first stage. For example, some felt that the term ‘science’ could itself be leading and ‘research’ should be used instead, where appropriate. The first stage of the engagement exercise could also usefully explore the role of society in supporting research, as well as asking what research/science could do for society.

 

9. It was agreed that the 3 stakeholders groups (scientists, land managers, and field advisory staff) should be based around Nottingham as this was fairly central and therefore gave access to a greater variety of farming/land-use types than the very specialised East Anglian region. Nottingham was also close to a number of bases for ag-biotech research.

 

10. It was agreed that the Public groups should be based around Bristol and Cardiff, but the Scottish groups should be based around Perth rather than Inverness.

 

11. Ideally there would be some geographical diversity in the stakeholder groups so that a wider range of views could be covered. However, this would be difficult in terms of logistics, cost constraints, and retaining participants if they had to travel long distances. The core group agreed to speak to the contractors to explore what was possible within the allocated budget.

 

12. The exercise was not designed to include representative samples from any location or group and care would have to be taken to present the results in an appropriate manner.

 

13. The different sorts of people to be included in each of the stakeholder groups, and additional criteria for selecting stakeholders and public participants was discussed. A summary of the decisions is listed at Annex A.

 

 

Future Meetings

14. The following proposals were made for the remaining Research Agendas Group meetings and full AEBC meeting.

 

Research Agendas Group Meeting 19th October:

• Further discussion on the information/analysis paper
• An update on the progress with the public and stakeholder engagement exercise
• Preliminary work on the case studies

 

Research Agendas Group Meeting 26th November:

• Invite guest speakers to discuss case study material

 

AEBC meeting 8/9th December:

• Discussion on a near final version of the information paper in preparation for a written stakeholder consultation process on it.
• Presentation from OLR of progress and interim results in the engagement exercise

 

Annex A – Agreed criteria for selection of participants in Public and Stakeholder engagement exercise

 

 

Stakeholders

Location – Nottingham (not Cambridge)

 

Scientists

A mix of people from the following groups:

Agronomist

Plant geneticist/breeder

Ecologist

Animal Scientist

Conservationist

Animal Production scientist

Veterinary Scientist

Molecular Biologist

Soil Scientist/microbiologist

 

Additional criteria:

Should be mostly experienced scientists, but not those that usually have a voice in funding decisions, i.e. group leader level. Also include a few junior scientists eg. post docs.

 

Would be good if the group could include a scientist from industry

 

Should not all be from the same university/institute

 

 

Land managers

A mix of people from the following groups:

Arable farming

Dairy farming

Livestock farming

Horticulturists/growers

Organic farming

Farmers working under other schemes eg. LEAF, IPM

Woodland/forestry manager

Those from a business that owns a number of farms e.g. Co-op, Velcourt(?) or big estates like Dalesford