Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)
Research Agendas workstream

Note of Core Group meeting 7 March 2005

Present:
Matthew Freeman
Rosie Hails
Keekok Lee
Sue Mayer
Paul van Heyningen (Secretary)

1. The paper was very close to being finalised, though the conclusions section should be revised to include the conclusions that soil science:



• was an area where the research agenda setting process had worked quite well in responding to new drivers;



• had been reconstructed to respond to a new set of broad environmental questions, but was not fully in line with the sustainable agriculture agenda (though there was a limit to the amount of research that could be done and not all questions could be tackled);



• demonstrated the difficulty of fostering multidisciplinary research successfully (echoing Julia Goodfellow’s more general points at the AEBC meeting on 24 February).

Action: secretariat to redraft conclusions of case study and cross-reference to final report


2. The skills base problem was the key issue highlighted in the case study. This should be picked up and cross-referenced in the final report for the workstream, perhaps under recommendation 2, or section 3.7 (co-ordination of research).


Action: Keekok Lee to suggest to secretariat points for cross-referencing soil science case study to final report


3. As already proposed, the revised paper should be sent to those experts who had already contributed for a second chance to comment and correct inaccuracies. The same should be done for the plant breeding study.


Action: secretariat

Item 2: Final report from Opinion Leader Research (OLR)


4. A report on the Stage 3 workshop had been received, as well as a short report summarising the whole exercise. Most of those present had not had a chance to study these, so substantive discussion was postponed. However, it was agreed that it was crucial for the summary report to draw out carefully the key points from the exercise of relevance to the workstream. The reports for Stages 1, 2 and 3 must be checked and revised for accuracy and covering the issues that the AEBC requires.


Action: Sue Mayer to study the reports in depth and liaise with secretariat on feedback to OLR

Item 3: Second draft final report


5. It was agreed that the revisions to the report were a good reflection of the discussion at the AEBC meeting on 24 February and had improved the paper, which was also close to being final. A number of minor amendments were suggested, to be reflected in a third draft to be tabled for the next AEBC meeting on 21 March. The most significant of these are described below:



• 2.1 page 1: ensure that the issues mentioned in the first paragraph are all addressed, and broaden the issues a little to ensure balance.


• 2.2 page 3: The modular structure should be clearly explained, by moving the paragraph in bold from page 8


• 2.2.1 page 4 (and other references): The 4th driver should be rephrased: “public priorities and aspirations for science”.


• 2.2.2 page 5: The lack of ag-biotech industry input to the consultation should be acknowledged.


• Recommendation 1 p9 (and all others: All recommendations should be re-drafted where appropriate in more targeted, specific language (i.e. to become recommendations rather than conclusions)


• 3.3.-3.4 p11-13: Action: Keekok Lee to suggest text on the need for funders to be aware of different paradigms for agricultural science.


• 3.5-3.6 p 13-16: merge sections.


• 3.7 p 17: add text to reflect problems with encouraging mathematicians and physical scientists in NERC or BBSRC institutes to apply for funds from EPSRC responsive mode c.f. Julia Goodfellow evidence from 24 February AEBC meeting.


• Recommendation 7 p21: should acknowledge that there may be cases where details of scientists involved need to be withheld for security reasons.


• Recommendation 9 p27: should refer explicitly to the Council for Science and Technology here.


• Recommendation 11 p28: should be for a review of how media deals with science more generally.



Item 4: publication and launch


6. The approach suggested at the AEBC meeting on 24 February, with the final report being printed in a well-designed, ‘glossy’ format, and other papers being made available where appropriate in a more basic format, was agreed.



7. The possibility was raised of a holding a launch meeting for the reports.