AEBC Research Agendas Workstream
Possible Conclusions and Recommendations: note for discussion at AEBC meeting on 9 December
2004
This paper is intended to stimulate discussion only. Some, but not all, of its contents has
been discussed by the AEBC research agendas core group. None of the suggested conclusions
have been firmly agreed. Furthermore, some important outcomes of this workstream are still
pending, i.e. the results of a written stakeholder consultation (closing date 15 December)
and of the public/“hard-to-reach” stakeholder engagement exercise (final stage in February).
Suggested starting principles – points held to be self-evident at outset:
Scientific excellence must be a prerequisite for all research
Some way of ensuring accountability and recognition of public attitudes in the
setting of agendas for publicly-funded research is appropriate
The creation of wealth is a laudable aim, and wealth creation must be a factor in research-funding
decisions.
Possible conclusions and recommendations
Central Government control and scrutiny of Research Councils and directed research
programmes is increasing, although there is still a significant “bottom up” influence on
research agendas.
The importance of research to support policy and regulation is growing. The “quality
of life” element that was an important feature of Realising Our Potential in 1993 is much
less prominent in the recent Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014. Quality
of life seems to have become subsumed under supporting Government policy and regulation.
While these things are obviously connected, not all research that increases quality of life
will contribute to Government policy.
Wealth creation is becoming an increasingly significant driver in the setting of
research agendas. This does not mean a shift to more near-market and applied research.
Basic science and “blue skies” research are supported, but are billed as a contribution to
the “knowledge economy”. But some basic science should be funded to generate knowledge for
its own sake, even if it does not contribute towards the “knowledge economy”. It is simply
important to ensure that scientists are in a position to spot potential commercial
applications and to exploit them when they are found. Research may have no immediate
wealth-creating value but could help to tackle future, unanticipated problems with serious
cost implications (e.g. research into foot and mouth disease, invasive plant species).
A diversity of drivers behind research is crucial, and no one driver should become
over-dominant. There is a danger of the wealth creation driver becoming over-dominant.
Technology has been a major influence on the direction of agricultural research.
“Platform” technologies such as genomics can revitalise research areas, greatly improving
scientific quality and the potential to generate results. They are also favoured for their
wealth creation potential. However, it is important to ensure that technologies do not
become ends in themselves.
Genuine public engagement in the setting of agricultural biotechnology research
agendas is minimal; there is general agreement by research funders that it is something to
be aspired to but no agreed methods for how to do it in a constructive way in which public
views are taken into account but scientific autonomy is still preserved.
Research funders should actively engage the public in the setting of research agendas
in agricultural biotechnology [1].
Results of engagement should be made public.
Funders should say in advance how they plan to use the results of engagement and should document
how results have influenced them.
In seeking the best methodology for engaging the public, funders should look to the forthcoming
output of the Office of Science and Technology’s Science Wise grant scheme and the Council for Science
and Technology’s Science and Society subgroup’s advice on better use of public dialogue.
The needs of non-conventional farming systems and ordinary consumers are
under-represented on decision-making bodies in Research Councils and Government Departments.
End-user representation includes the private sector (mainly food industry, pharmaceutical
and high-tech sectors, with a significant presence from the farming sector and agricultural
industries) and, to a lesser extent charities and NGOs.
It is difficult to gain an insight into exactly how the decision-making process
works in research agenda setting in agricultural biotechnology. With some exceptions,
decision-making processes are not fully open and transparent.
Research funders should be more open and transparent about how they set their
agendas. Meetings of Research Council decision-making committees should be held in public
and their papers and minutes should be made publicly available. [DN: need to be aware of
data protection issues here, particularly at level of individual grant decisions]
As a result of the increasing focus on wealth creation from publicly-funded research
and initiatives to increase co-operation and partnerships with the private sector, the
distinction between the public and private sectors has become blurred. This has led to
erosion of some of the ethos of public funding, meaning that:
Certain areas of public good agricultural research are neglected (plant breeding
for developing countries, sustainable agricultural systems, near-market research that is
not commercially viable)
Intellectual property and other issues of commercial interest are affecting public
research.
Agricultural biotechnology research agendas are not yet in line with the Government’s
objectives for agriculture as set out in their Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy (and
DA equivalents) [2]. The agendas of the different funders are not co-ordinated
as well as they could be.
Potential recommendations to resolve this lack of coordination include:
A committee should be established to co-ordinate sustainable agricultural research
(including agricultural biotechnology) between all public funders [3].
This could follow a remit similar to the Environmental Research Funders Forum, providing a "joined-up"
approach to UK sustainable agricultural science strategy by determining areas of synergy;
identifying and taking action on any gaps in environmental research and training; and
shaping future direction. The committee should include a broad range of end-user
representation as well as representatives of the funding organisations.
Merging all or part of NERC and BBSRC to resolve the current artificial division of
the agri-environment research area.
Possible recommendations stemming from plant breeding and soil science case studies:
Public agenda plant breeding should be supported more by public research funding
[4].
Research funding should continue to be directed towards agricultural soil science of
practical relevance, aimed at developing soil management techniques that might improve
agricultural sustainability but which do not necessarily provide commercial opportunities.
AEBC secretariat
December 2004
[1] Does there need to be more public engagement on the setting of research agendas?
Reasons that have been used to justify greater public engagement include:
Being seen to engage the public increases trust and perceived openness;
It is more democratic (although it can be argued that in a representative democracy,
decisions are delegated to qualified individuals);
Public participation will improve the quality of decision-making.
There is also a question of at what stage public engagement is best – upstream or
downstream, strategic or funding level. [DN: great deal of social science research exists
on public engagement on science and technology – this needs to be reflected. RGW is on RELU
panel]
[2] Note: await report of Defra’s Research Priorities Group, due March 2005
[3] Note recommendation 1 from BBSRC sustainable agriculture review (2002): We recommend
that Council considers whether the current research committee structure could be improved
to better recognise the broad and integrative nature of sustainable agriculture research.
Council may wish to note that we strongly encourage concerted funding actions in this area
involving BBSRC, ESRC and NERC. The group favours establishing a dedicated Sustainable
Agriculture Research Committee that is preferably a joint committee with NERC and involving
ESRC - for which Council would clearly need the agreement of the other parties. The joint
committee would promote basic and enabling research into sustainable land use, and provide
necessary long-term continuity and scale of research in a way that is very difficult to do
with short bursts of integrative funding for initiatives.
[4] See recommendation 14 in BBSRC crop science review (2004): BBSRC should take the lead to
establish a national plant breeding initiative, in partnership with other funders drawn
from government, charities and the private sector, that would promote public-good plant
breeding by establishing crop genetic improvement programmes with the aim of providing
improved germplasm and technology for the development of new varieties
