Note of Research Agendas Group Meeting 8th February 2005

Attendees : Matthew Freeman, Sue Mayer, Jeff Maxwell, Rosie Hails, Keekok Lee, Dave Carmichael, Paul van Heyningen (secretariat), Tonima Saha (secretariat)

1. Plant breeding - Matthew Freeman and Paul van Heyningen had an informative meeting with the British Wheat Breeders on 4th February. The secretariat had spoken with a range of other experts in the field and received feedback on the first draft of the case study paper. They were now in a position to redraft the paper to include a broader range of perspectives in preparation for the next Commission meeting on 24th February.



2. Soil Science – the secretariat had spoken with a range of experts in the field and received feedback on the first draft of the case study paper. There had been general agreement to the historical context and the current state of soil science discussed in the paper. Work would begin on redrafting the paper in preparation for the next Commission meeting, (but it was agreed that work on the ‘Conclusions’ paper should take priority over this.)



3. It was agreed that any conclusions from the case studies would be used to illustrate the more general conclusions and recommendations of the workstream, rather than be presented separately as ‘case study conclusions’. Peer reviewers for the case studies would be engaged if time permitted.



4. Public engagement - The secretariat would confirm dates for completion of the reports from the contractors and a verbal update would be given at the next Commission meeting.


Discussion on research agendas consultation


5. All agreed that the draft paper on the consultation responses was an excellent analysis of the information that had been collected. The paper would be tabled at the next Commission meeting.



6. The emphasis would now be on drawing out the key points from the consultation to feed into the overall conclusions for the workstream. It was suggested that it might be useful to include some carefully chosen quotes from the responses to help ‘liven up’ the conclusions and recommendations paper.
Action – members to send any thoughts on key points from the consultation or interesting quotes to Paul as soon as possible


7. It was felt that the responses had been very well considered and thoughtful. The final paper should emphasise the Commission’s gratitude to respondents for their contribution to the consultation.



8. It was agreed that all consultation responses would be placed on the AEBC website


Discussion on conclusions


9. The conclusions were thought to fall under the following main categories:
   (A full note of the discussions is not provided as the relevant points will be incorporated into the redrafted conclusions paper).



10. Wealth creation – this was currently an important driver but there was confusion over what exactly this meant. The concept needed to be widened from simply financial considerations to include social and environmental aspects. It was debated whether this could be included under a ‘sustainability’ headed. The alternative was to suggest an additional ‘public good’ driver was needed.



11. Multiple drivers were important – It would be important to clarify that there was not one entity that was ‘The Research Agenda’ but many different organisations and agendas, and this was a good thing. Different drivers also had a different effect depending on the type of research and the level being considered.



12. Co-ordination of research funders - it was questioned whether greater coordination was needed as some felt for example BBSRC, Defra and SEERAD already held regular meetings. The coordination would only be successful if systems were open and transparent.



13. A diversity of funders was beneficial and the need for wider access to funding from different sources. For example, it was noted that BBSRC and NERC had opened up their processes and a wider range of applicants were eligible for their grants. This diversity of funding streams was linked to the need to maintain a strong science base and encouraging interdisciplinarity. It needed to be balanced with the benefits of a multiplicity of drivers however.



14. More openness, transparency and accountability was needed – Best practice should be encouraged, such as publishing minutes, open meetings where appropriate, a ‘layman’s’ explanation of research in each application etc. As well as a need to be more transparent, it was also important for the public to be aware of the openness and have access to information.



15. Those setting the agendas should be able to justify their decisions, both positive and negative, and should therefore include reasons why certain areas were supported as well as why something had not been funded. However, it should be recognised that not everything in the system could be transparent as informal influences e.g. zeitgeist and culture were also important.



16. It should be noted that there were different mechanisms in different types of organisations but the same principles should be applied. The private sector and levy boards should also be encouraged to think along these lines.



17. Broader engagement was required at the strategic level of research agenda setting – although public engagement further downstream should not be completely ruled out and further research in this area was recommended.



18. The paper should explain what the Commission meant by public engagement and why such an approach was advocated. This should include a recognition that public engagement was a professional activity that could be peer reviewed. The recommendations should not be too prescriptive about the approach to be taken, but rather the general principles to be followed.



19. There was a gap in near market research where there were also ‘public good’ benefits - for example, in areas of crop breeding, meeting the needs of developing countries, and also systems-based approaches such as organic farming (as opposed to more product based research). This should be provided by the public sector with support of scientists to do so, and engagement of stakeholders. The private sector could also be incentivised to take on such research.


Discussion on workstream outputs


20. The final paper would focus on conclusions and recommendations, including the thinking and rationale behind them, referring to evidence and/or previous papers. It would be short, but include some context and background to the work, the other papers that had been produced, and emphasise the process of the worksteam, particularly how the Commission had sought to involve a range of people in developing this work. The presentational and publication issues would be discussed further at the next Commission meeting.



21. The analysis paper would be updated with some small amendments to take on board suggestions from the consultation, (although it was agreed this best left until the other papers had been finalised).



22. The long information paper would not be a priority for updating. If time were not available to update it before finishing the workstream, it would be made clear that some parts were likely to be out of date, but that it had been a useful part of the workstream.


Discussion on meeting with Julia Goodfellow


23. Julia Goodfellow would be attending the Commission meeting on 24th February. It was agreed that the questions for her should focus on getting a more in-depth understanding of the processes in BBSRC, and getting her reaction to the research agendas conclusions.



24. Additional Secretariat Note – a conference call with Matthew and Sue has been arranged to discuss in more detail questions for Julia Goodfellow. This will be on Monday 14th February, 2-3pm. Members are requested to contact the secretariat if they would like to contribute any thoughts or participate in the call.