Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) Research Agendas workstream:
DRAFT
2.0: FINAL
REPORT,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Paper RA 7.3
1. Summary
[to follow]
2. Introduction
Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are invested each year in agricultural research in the UK, much of this using modern biological techniques - that is, biotechnology in its broad sense. Since it was established in 2000, the Commission has become aware of a number of concerns expressed by stakeholders about research spend in this area. Often, people have told us that the underlying problem behind the genetic modification (GM) controversies that we have addressed in our past work is that the wrong research is being done in agriculture. The GM controversy raised scientific issues that had not been previously been addressed, calling into question why these areas had not been covered by earlier research agendas[1]. Concerns include a sense that the balance of public research has shifted and is now too focused on underpinning commercial applications; that creativity and innovation are stifled by a preoccupation with risk and regulation; and that public funding into areas of possible benefit to society are neglected due to low commercial significance. But are these concerns well founded? What shapes the research agenda in agricultural biotechnology?[2]
To answer these questions, we have taken a systematic look at the drivers behind research, and the mechanisms in place for setting priorities, and have tried to identify the implications for the research that is done of what we have found.
This is an
issue that goes much wider than agricultural biotechnology, and there is
high-level interest in research agendas. The Government’s ten-year investment
framework for science and innovation considers the overall science agenda and
its relationship with the economy, policy and society[3].
Starting with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s report on Science
and Society in 2000, a number of groups have called for science to be more
open and accountable to the public[4].
Where,
then, does the AEBC add value? With our broad membership, including natural and
social scientists, people from the biotechnology industry, environmental
campaigners and lawyers, our consensus report has the backing of a wide range
of points of view. Our thorough approach, which has included information
gathering, detailed case studies, written consultation and public and
stakeholder engagement modules (see low) means that our conclusions and
recommendations are backed by a large and varied body of evidence. We have
attempted to address and incorporate views from everyone we have talked to
throughout the exercise, from farming organisations to Research Council chief
executives and from members of the public to agricultural scientists.
Our focus,
as befits our remit, is on agricultural biotechnology research[5],
though we have often strayed towards agricultural research more generally, and
even science as a whole. We make no apologies for this, because the
relationship between agricultural biotechnology and agri-food research in
general is interesting and a rigid adherence to biotechnology would have been
practically difficult and artificially constraining. Furthermore, while our
conclusions and recommendations apply specifically to agricultural
biotechnology, most of them have wider relevance. In some respects, our work
should be considered as a case study with implications for research agenda–setting
in general.
From the
beginning, we decided to concentrate our attention on publicly funded research.
This is because we feel that it is more appropriate, and in line with our
remit, to pay attention to the public sector. As advisors to Government, the
funder of public research, it is here that our advice is likely to have most
impact. In addition, gathering information on private sector research
activities in agricultural biotechnology is likely to pose practical
difficulties. However, we recognise that a significant part of agricultural
biotechnology research, the majority globally, is in the private sector and,
more importantly, that private companies have a strong influence on and links
with public funders. We have devoted much attention to the relationship between
the public and private sector, and we feel that our findings are also relevant
to private companies.
Agricultural
biotechnology research is an international activity and international
influences on research agendas cannot be ignored. Overseas research in
biotechnology has an effect on and is affected by, UK research. Some UK
research is targeted specifically at the needs of developing countries. In
addition, the major policy influences on agriculture, and therefore
agricultural research, are international, including the Common Agricultural
Policy reform and liberalisation of world trade. We have constrained our scope
to UK research for similar reasons to the concentration on the public sector.
But we acknowledge that, as UK researchers look increasingly to European Union
programmes and other opportunities for international cooperation, especially
for expensive, large-scale work, this constraint is becoming more and more
significant.
We have
taken a modular approach, with five separate strands to this work, conducted
largely simultaneously, contributing to the overall findings set out in this
report (see Annex 1):
1.
Information
gathering and analysis
2.
Written
consultation exercise
3.
Public
and stakeholder engagement exercise
4.
Plant
breeding case study
5.
Soil
science case study
The output
of each module is summarised below, and the full papers for each are available
on line and hard copy[6].
Our first step in examining research agendas this work was to gather a large volume of information covering[7]:
· a historical overview of UK research policy in general and agricultural biotechnology research policy specifically;
· the key over-arching influences on research agendas; and
· detailed descriptions of organisations funding agricultural biotechnology research in the UK, breaking down their expenditure and describing how they set research agendas, the aims and specific drivers that influence them and how stakeholders and the public are engaged in their operations.
We gathered this information from three main sources: desk research by the AEBC secretariat; academic literature provided by AEBC members and experts in science policy; and the evidence of guests invited to AEBC meetings during 2004 and 2005[8]. The information was and analysed in a paper that also made some broad observations and drew preliminary conclusions from the data. This analysis paper suggested that the drivers behind research agendas in agricultural biotechnology could be grouped in four main categories:
1. Advancing knowledge and technology and maintaining the science base
2. Wealth creation and international competitiveness
3. Government policy, regulation and legislation
4. Public attitudes to science in society
However, it was clear that formal drivers and mechanisms were not the whole picture and cultural and historical factors, which are difficult to describe or measure, were important.
The balance between the drivers varied for different funders and different scientific areas. Advancing knowledge was a more significant driver for Research Councils and Universities, while supporting policy is a higher priority for Government departments. However, general trends could be detected. The importance of research to support policy appeared to be growing. The pursuit of knowledge and scientific excellence continued to be important, but the reasons for this were increasingly linked to wealth creation. Despite the focus on wealth creation, there was no sign of a move towards more near-market, experimental development type research - in fact, there might be said to be a gap in the provision of near-market research.
Examination of the mechanisms of research agenda setting suggested that policy drivers influenced research agendas through policy representation on Research Council decision-making bodies and other, less formal, interactions between scientists and policy makers. The drive for wealth creation and competitiveness came mainly through high-level Government initiatives, including financial incentives for individual scientists, and through private sector funding and representation on high-level committees and advisory groups
We found that all Research Councils and Government Departments used a process of consultation and a structure involving advisory groups with “end-user” membership in developing research strategies. However, there were few mechanisms to allow the views of the lay public to influence research agendas directly. The majority of public ‘engagement’ activities seemed to focus on information dissemination and education.
Academic scientists dominated the highest level advisory committees, influencing the research agenda in this way and also by “bottom-up” prioritisation through responsive-mode funding. While scientists retained considerable autonomy over research agendas, there was growing central scrutiny of the strategic direction of research agendas. With some exceptions, decision-making processes were not fully open and transparent.
In October
2004, the AEBC launched a written consultation on research agendas, writing to
over 150 organisations and individuals and making the consultation documents
available to all on the Commission’s website[9]. The
consultation invited comments on 14 specific questions as well as general
views, and the draft analysis paper (see above) was enclosed to stimulate
comment.
A total of
30 responses were received, with a fairly even distribution from a variety of
categories including Government, non-departmental public bodies, research
providers, Research Councils, the agriculture industry, other non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), and a number of individuals. We were extremely gratified
by the high quality of responses, which contained a diverse range of stimulating
comments and thought-provoking suggestions to help us in developing our
conclusions and recommendations.
Overall,
respondents welcomed the AEBC’s interest into research agendas in agricultural
biotechnology, considering it an area worthy of examination.
Several
gaps were highlighted in the AEBC’s analysis so far, including research to
benefit agriculture in developing countries, University research funding and
the Research Assessment exercise, and charity and levy body-funded research.
A number of respondents
raised concerns about the overall nature of agricultural biotechnology
research, feeling that fundamental change was needed to make sustainable
farming the aim. Some felt that this required a shift in focus from product
development to agricultural methods and processes, or to a more systems-based,
holistic approach.
Most
respondents agreed broadly with the drivers we identified in our analysis.
Several respondents expressed concerns that the focus on advancing fundamental
knowledge and scientific curiosity meant that agendas were insufficiently
targeted to practical applications. Others felt that the wealth creation driver
was too strong, and several, mainly NGOs and individuals, viewed the increasing
links between the public and private sectors with suspicion. However, some
farming industry respondents commented on the need for more market focus and
said that more private sector cooperation was needed. All respondents
acknowledged the increasing emphasis on research to support Government policy
and regulation and while some research providers and NGOs welcomed this, other
NGOs, and several individuals, felt that policy needs were too far removed from
the fundamental objectives of public good and sustainability.
On
mechanisms for setting agendas, Defra and BBSRC cited recent improvements.
Several respondents agreed that there was a tendency for increased stakeholder
involvement, but there was a general agreement that more openness and
transparency were needed in priority setting. Most respondents, across all
categories, wanted more public engagement in decision-making and several
suggested ways in which this could be made more genuine and meaningful. Some
responses, particularly from research funders and providers, commented on the
practical difficulties and avoiding disproportionate influence from
self-selecting groups was a concern for many.
[to follow]
This exercise was targeted at lay
members of the public and ‘hard to reach’ stakeholders. Through a series of in-depth, professionally facilitated
workshops, we sought the views of those who do not usually have a voice in
research decisions, but who are involved or affected by agricultural
biotechnology research in some way.
Our two case studies aim to focus on a specific research area in order to identify the important influences on that field, and explore the implication of these drivers for the research agenda in that area.
Plant breeding was an area of research highlighted
for a case study early on in the AEBC’s thinking, as it is an area where
significant changes to the research structure have occurred, both in the public
and private sectors. The paper was developed through consultation and
discussion with a number of practicing plant breeders and academics, in
addition to desk based research.
The case study looks at changes to the structure and
nature of plant breeding research in the UK, and the reasons behind this. It is
possible to see that all the drivers behind agricultural research in general
identified by the AEBC have had an influence on the plant breeding research
agenda.
Technological developments have made it possible for
significant advances to be made to the rate and nature of crop improvements.
However, this technological drive has been tempered by slow uptake of new
technology by industrial breeders, and negative public reaction to
biotechnologies.
Policy decisions to move out of near market research
in the 1980s, and the sale of the Plant Breeding Institute have catalysed a
shift of plant breeding research from the public to the private sector. Plant breeding has also responded to shifts
in priorities in the farming industry partly driven by changing Government
agricultural and trade policies. However, with a large proportion of breeding
now in the private sector, market forces have a dominant influence on the
research agenda.
Although a number of positive developments have
resulted from these changes, the case study concludes that there is now a risk
that plant breeding research objectives will be overly focused on purely
economic goals, at the expense of social and environmental objectives. A role
for Government therefore emerges in providing research to fill any potential
gaps, as well as incentivising industry to undertake research relevant to
sustainability goals, and market demand for the resulting products. The
importance of engaging with the public and stakeholders at an early stage of
technology is also highlighted.
Soil science was chosen as a case
study because of an often-cited perception that agricultural soil science has
declined in recent years. As a more process-oriented and less product- and
industry-focused area of science, it contrasts helpfully with the plant breeding
case study. The paper was developed through consultation and discussion with a
number of practicing soil scientists.
The soil is a highly complex and dynamic system.
Understanding its physical and chemical properties is hard enough, but it also
harbours a remarkable biodiversity. The relationships between these abiotic and
biotic components and the soil’s many functions are still poorly understood.
Nevertheless, since its beginnings in the 19th century, soil science has helped
to produce the vastly improved yields of modern agriculture.
The soil’s role in a host of other processes, such as
carbon cycling and climate change, pollution and ecosystem function mean that
factors other than a desire to improve agricultural productivity can influence
research agendas. In the last twenty-five years in most Western cultures, the
key drivers behind soil science have changed considerably as technical advances
have begun to allow fundamental soil processes to be understood. Food
production continues to be the driving force behind soil science research in
developing countries.
Soil science is an interesting case study of how a
particular area of science is adapting to changing priorities and as technical
developments allow new approaches to be taken. The case study examines the
implications of the redirection of priorities and resources on the soil science
that is carried out today, including the key areas of work and sources of
funding, and looking particularly at the consequences for agricultural soil
science. It concludes that, after a period of neglect in the 1980s, soil
science has entered a dynamic and exciting phase, and a time of great potential
to contribute to understanding on today’s most important environmental issues.
However, it finds that the rapid redirection of resources has had some negative
consequences, particularly in the area of maintaining the skills base in soil
science and neglecting some important areas of work.
All five of these modules have
contributed to this final report, and often they have reinforced each other.
Most of our conclusions and recommendations are supported by the findings of
more than one of the modules. Throughout the report that follows, we have
referred to relevant data from the modules described above, which we feel lends
weight to our views. However, in order to benefit from the comprehensive
analysis that has contributed to our findings, we recommend visiting the full
papers themselves.
3. Conclusions and recommendations
In spring
of 2004, the AEBC set out to investigate “What Shapes The Research Agenda?” in agricultural biotechnology. Through the
approach described above, we are now in a position to answer this question, to
say where we think the system works well, and to make recommendations in areas
where we think it could be improved.
But, before describing our conclusions, it is important to emphasise that we have used the concept of “The Research Agenda” as a convenient short hand. We do not believe that there is one single research agenda in agricultural biotechnology in the United Kingdom, or indeed in any other area of science. Instead there are multiple agendas, set by a variety of funding bodies that have different perspectives and priorities. This was reflected in our written consultation and in other discussions with stakeholders, where views differed depending on whether comments referred to Research Councils, Government departments or other funding bodies. Clearly, there are links and strong similarities between the overarching agendas of different funding bodies, but every funder of agricultural biotechnology research has a different emphasis. This is an advantage – it ensures a plurality of drivers behind research strategies and therefore encourages a more balanced overall portfolio of research. As we shall describe below, we have concluded that there is some danger of certain drivers becoming over-dominant and we feel that having a diverse array of research agendas militates against this to some extent.
Recommendation 1:
Diverse research agendas mean a plurality of drivers behind research and
therefore encourage a balanced and varied portfolio. This diversity is healthy
and no one agenda or driver should be allowed to dominate.
[Sue Mayer comment: “This isn’t really a recommendation. It doesn’t say
anyone should do anything. I’d just delete it”. More generally, Sue has pointed
out that
A second
proviso is that not all the drivers behind research agendas are explicit.
Informal influences have a significant effect on research agendas. These
include past precedent and inertia, current scientific trends, areas of UK
expertise, and lobbying by groups representing a range of commercial and other
interests. As Dr David Heaf pointed out in his response to our written
consultation, the Zeitgeist, or the trends in thoughts and feelings
among those setting agendas, plays a key role in shaping what science is doneis a key
driver. Informal influences on research agendas are inevitable and
need to be acknowledged alongside the more overt drivers. We agree with the
Institute of Food Research that they should not be considered a problem as long
as our recommendations for openness, transparency and accountability in agenda
setting discussed below are adhered to.
Notwithstanding
these two caveats, we believe that the
four key drivers behind
research that we have identified in our analysis paper are validremain a valid
summary of the key drivers behind research today:
1) Advancing knowledge and technology and maintaining the
science base
2) Wealth creation and international competitiveness
3) Government policy, regulation and legislation
4) Public
aspirations for Sscience and in society
Government
policy and regulatory concerns might dominate research on the safety of
agricultural technologies, while research into new agricultural products would
be focused on wealth creation and experiments looking at flowering mechanisms
in plant would be based largely on scientific curiosity. However, we believe
that each of the key drivers affects all agricultural biotechnology research,
and indeed all of agricultural research, to a varying extent.
This brief
list is necessarily a crude summary, and the four drivers are multifaceted,
complex and interrelated. They are described in more detail in our analysis
paper. Nevertheless, the other modules of our workstream – the written
consultation, engagement exercise and case studies – largely confirmed our view
that these are the key drivers. However, they
also suggested that some refinements are needed to the definitions in our
analysis paper, and these are taken into account in the text that follows below
and incorporated into the revised analysis paper published alongside this
report.However, we do not believe that these are the right
drivers. Recommendation 4 below suggests the need to
introduce an additional driver in order more explicitly to identify values of sustainability and public good alongside the equally desirable as well as necessary driver of
wealth creation and international competitiveness.
“RRes hopes to be able to influence the agenda for
scientific research of relevance to agriculture and the environment but, in the
final analysis, the organisation must always demonstrate agility in its
response to the research agenda as set externally by its funders (mainly
government departments and the research councils).”
Rothamsted
Research (RRes) response to written consultation, December 2004
“Our feeling is that … the majority of the
scientific community who are involved in and excited by biotechnology still lie
largely in the ‘curiosity driven’ domain and, in the main, do not prefer to
align their activities with policy issues over and above the development of
fundamental science.”
Scottish
Agricultural College response to written consultation, December 2004
The above
are just two of many, sometimes conflicting views we received on the role of
scientists in setting agendas, an issue which relates largely to the first
driver listed above (advancing knowledge and technology and maintaining the
science base). It is clear that
scientists can to some extent determine the science that they do, as shown by
the existence of responsive mode funding, and the research councils’ emphasis
on this route[10]. We believe
that scientists have most impact in setting agendas by providing the
innovation, in terms of theoretical and technological developments and
methodology, which underlies their discipline. However, during our public and
stakeholder engagement exercise, many of the scientists participating felt very
strongly that their influence was weak and heavily constrained by the narrow
parameters set by strategic priorities and mechanisms such as the Research
Assessment Exercise (in Universities) and the “box-ticking” of the grant application
process. In our analysis paper, we discussed the growing central scrutiny and
control of research agendas. This is demonstrated, for example, by the proposed
Office of Science and Technology (OST) performance management system for the
Research Councils[11],
and by the new SEERAD strategy, which seeks to align the research it funds more
closely to its policy needs, thereby reducing the autonomy of the institutes it
supports[12].
In
retrospect, the terms “bottom-up” and “top-down” that we have used before are
not really appropriate here. It is impossible to distinguish “bottom-up” from
“top-down” influences completely because they feedback on one another. It could
also be said that genuine “bottom-up” influence would be from end-users of the
research including farmers or consumers, rather than scientists (these issues
are covered in the discussion on public and stakeholder engagement below).
Overall, we
conclude that ordinary scientists (that
is those not sitting on funders’ decision-making bodies), still retain a strong
influence on research agendas, but that this influence is constrained within a
strategic focus over which they have declining influence. The breadth of this
constraint varies between the different funders.
There was
strong support in our public and stakeholder engagement exercise for continuing
basic or “blue-skies” research, on grounds of the intrinsic value of knowledge
about the world provided by scientific discoveries, but mainly of the
instrumental value of such knowledge for the good of society, either in the
short or long term. Although some were concerned about the lack of more applied
agricultural research being done, nobody we heard from in our consultation
queried the need for fundamental, basic research.
As
discussed above and in our analysis paper, there is an increasing trend for
research agendas to support Government policy and regulatory needs,
particularly in Government-department funded research but also, though to a
lesser extent, Research Council science. These moves are not unwelcome and we
agree with Government on the importance of balanced, evidence-based policy
making. However we feel that the importance of basic research, to underpin more
applied work, and the broad support for this that we have found, must be
highlighted.
Recommendation 2: Support for
high-quality, basic research should be maintained, to generate fundamental
knowledge even if it has no direct and immediately obvious practical value.
Basic research priorities and areas of
science cannot be divorced from
any strategic direction or accountability, but they should be
protected from short-term pressures such as policy needs and the drive for
wealth creation. Excellence should be the primary criterion
for funding and as
wide a science base as possible should be developed.[By the same token, the funding of basic research
should be removed from the influence of stakeholders and the public. We believe
that the public and other stakeholders would support this, but recommend that
this belief be tested through engagement. (?)]
Part of
the Advancing Knowledge and Technology
and Maintaining the Science Base driver, as described in our analysis
paper, is the “technology push”, exemplified in 1994 by the subsuming of the
Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) in the creation of the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), in order to
exploit the biosciences with an increasingly technological focus.
It is
clear that technology has been a major influence on the direction of
agricultural research. In our case study on soil science, we show that advances
in molecular biological and genomic technology have opened up new avenues and
created opportunities for soil science to pursue questions that were previously
largely inaccessible. “Platform” technologies such as genomics can revitalise
research areas, greatly improving scientific quality and the potential to
generate results. Some technologies are also favoured for their wealth creation
potential.
However, some of the respondents to our written
consultation expressed concerns about the emphasis on molecular and
biotechnological techniques, and the associated reductionist perspectives, in
agricultural research. They believe that this technology focus is
disproportionate and does not necessarily result in research of optimum benefit
to society. They feel that there is a need for more holistic, systems-based
research that is directed more towards agricultural methods and processes than
at present[13].
The 2002 BBSRC review of sustainable agricultural research[14]
recognised the historical focus on molecular and cellular level studies and the
“relative weakness in integrative and systems studies of relevance to
sustainable agriculture at the whole organism, field, farm or catchment level.”
It recommended a review of the resources needed for the sustainable agriculture
programme, with a view to providing the kind of generic platform facilities
available for structural biology and genomics. We sympathise with these views.
Recommendation 3: It is
important to ensure that technologies do not become ends in themselves, but are
targeted towards agreed objectivesexplicit goals
of benefit to society and sustainable agriculture. We
endorse the recommendation
of the BBSRC sustainable agriculture review group for a review of the capacity
for more systems-based, longer-term sustainable agriculture studies.
[Note:
awaiting information from BBSRC on how these recommendations are being
implemented]
Our
analysis paper concluded that wealth creation is a key driver behind agendas,
in agricultural biotechnology as in other areas of research, and suggested that
its importance was increasing. Responses to our written consultation supported
this conclusion. Evidence from all parts of our workstream suggests that wealth
creation is in danger of becoming over-dominant. The definition of wealth
creation, in theory and in practice, needs to be examined closely, and
alternatives must be considered.
Economic
returns from research started to receive increasing emphasis in the budget
freezes of the 1980s, but it rose
to prominence with the 1993 White Paper Realising
Our Potential, which led on
the concept of harnessing the UK’s strength in science and engineering to the
creation of wealth. This was to be achieved by “closer and more systematic
contact with those responsible for industrial and commercial decisions”[15].
Wealth creation continues to be a key theme in the Science and Innovation
Investment Framework 2004-2014, the first paragraph of which says that
“harnessing innovation in Britain is key to improving the country’s future
wealth creation prospects” and defines the Government’s ambition “for the UK to
be a key knowledge hub in the global economy”.
Our
engagement exercise revealed confusion among both public and stakeholder
participants about the context and purpose of wealth creation as a driver
behind research. [Note: revise once report of exercise received from OLR]. In theory, the concept of wealth creation could
be interpreted very broadly, to include non-material and non-financial values. Indeed one of our
consultation respondents suggested that a broad definition like this should be
adopted[16].
However, several consultation respondents expressed concern about the growing
influence of industrial and commercial interests. The examination of the
composition of a selection of research committees in our analysis paper
indicates a prevalence of, though certainly not complete domination by, large
commercial interests[17].
This suggests that wealth creation may tend in practice to be narrowly defined
for the benefit of particular business sectors, rather than the general
stimulation of economic activity.
Some
interpret the wealth creation driver more generally as a focus on market
considerations and cooperation with the private sector[18].
As well as stimulating economic activity, this focus should generate more
practical applications from research. The creation of wealth from the results of
scientific research is beneficial, and wealth creation should be one of the
drivers behind research. It is important to ensure that scientists are in a
position to spot identify potential
commercial applications and to facilitate their exploitation them when they are found. However, we
believe that wealth creation should apply to the full range of economic
activities, including smaller and
non-conventional farm and food, as well as large agri-food and technology
companies. This has
implications for the involvement of stakeholders in agenda setting, as
discussed below.
The
concept of “quality of life” was an important feature of Realising Our Potential, albeit one that was clearly
a secondary one to
wealth creation. The wider benefits of research, for which public expenditure
on science could be justified, were “above all the generation of national
prosperity and the improvement in the quality of life”. Though not explicitly
defined, quality of life was included in the new mission statements for science
and technology in Government departments and the Research Councils in the 1993
White Paper. Tellingly however, in last year’s Science and Innovation Investment Framework, “quality of life”
receives only three brief and passing mentions. It does not appear to have been
replaced by an alternative concept.
Several respondents in our consultation suggested that “sustainability” or “the
public good” should drive agricultural research more explicitly, but neither of
these appear significantly in the science and innovation framework. Our case study on plant breeding demonstrates that commercial drivers dominate in
this area of research.
Wealth
clearly contributes to quality of life and the public good, but wealth creation
does not substitute adequately for these aims. Not all research that
contributes to the public good, or to peoples’ quality of life, will generate
wealth by the narrow definition discussed above. Indeed the
three-pillars of sustainability include environmental protection and social
progress in addition to economic advancement.
Of course,
a significant amount of research done today generates public goods without creating wealth directly.
Examples include food safety research and studies of the effects of climate
change or soil pollution. Furthermore, such research with no immediate wealth
creating value may save a great deal of money by have help to tacklinge
future, unanticipated problems with serious cost implications, such as
outbreaks of an infectious animal disease or flooding.
In addition, all research
has significant wealth creation benefits by training people in scientific methods and maintaining the scientific skills base.
“Although we agree that policy relevance is
increasingly perceived as a strategic driver of research and development in
agricultural research, there is little evidence that agendas have yet responded
to this driver in the context of agricultural sustainability and impacts of
agriculture on the environment.”
British Statutory Conservation Agencies response to
written consultation, December 2004
But, as
noted in our analysis paper and supported by consultation responses, public
good and the old quality of life driver seem to have become subsumed in today’s
high-level science policy documents under the banner of supporting Government
policy and regulation. [Sue Mayer note: S&I Framework does refer
to science to meet the needs of the public services – should this be referred
to?] Like wealth creation, policy support does not encompass
all public goods; not all research that increases quality
of life priorities will not be identical will
contribute to Government policy or regulationpriorities. Furthermore, our public
and stakeholder engagement exercise showed clearly that participants do not
equate wealth generation or policy support with public good or quality of life
goals. [Note: revise once report of exercise received from OLR]
We do not doubt that most scientists, and funders
of science, consider the generation of public good and improvement
of quality of life to be key drivers for their work. But this public good should be made a more
explicit part of agricultural biotechnology overarching research agendas. However,
public good is a concept that is very open to interpretation – do we mean good
for the agriculture industry, good for the environment or good for the
developing world? In the context of agricultural
and more specifically agricultural biotechnological, we feel that the concept of sustainability
best represents and encompasses the
aims
of wealth creation, public good and quality of
life.
Rather than a return to the terminology of public
good and quality of life, we feel that the concept of sustainability best
represents these aims. We acknowledge that sustainability is as
open to different interpretations as public good, but it at least has some
well-accepted definitions attached to it[19].
Sustainable agriculture research is already part of the agendas of most of the
funders we have looked at, but sustainability does not
appear to be perceived as is not a
key driver. Given Importantly, that Government is explicitly
committed to sustainable development, and specifically to sustainable
agriculture. It therefore seems wrong to us that it
does not share the high-level strategic importance given to
the key drivers we have identified behind
current research