Note of meeting of Core Group on Research Agendas work stream
8th April 2004

1. It was agreed that although this project would look (amongst other things) at the involvement of public opinions in setting research agendas, the Commission would need to be quite clear that nothing should compromise scientific excellence, nor lead to micromanagement in science.



2. It would also be important that the Commission’s work went wider than just GM issues, (whilst recognising that there was particular societal and ethical interest around GM).



3. The scope of the project would be fairly broad at first, looking at a wide spectrum of agricultural and environmental research agendas. More specific biotech examples would be chosen further down the line.



4. There was some discussion on the definition of (agricultural) biotechnology and the following definition was suggested:
   “(novel) scientific and technological intervention into biological production in agriculture”



• The Secretariat would look into the EU definitions of biotechnology, including the distinction into Red (medical biotech), White (industrial biotech) and Green (agricultural biotech).



5. The focus of the project would be on public sector research but would touch on the private sector (including the levy bodies). The aim would not be to challenge private research agendas or how they were set, but to consider how public research agendas affect private research, and the gaps and areas of overlap.



• It was suggested that it would be useful to take evidence from someone from the private sector (e.g. David Gillham from Syngenta who was at the February Commission meeting) to gain some more information on the drivers behind private sector research agendas.

Key Questions

6. It was agreed that the title of this workstream should be “What shapes the research agenda?”.



7. The key questions would be:


1)“What are the key drivers behind agricultural biotechnology research agendas, and how are they balanced?”
This would look at the policy drivers as well as commercial interests and societal needs. It would consider how the various drivers were balanced and how they were translated downstream to the research that was eventually carried out.

2) “What mechanisms exist to ensure public attitudes, aspirations and policy priorities are taken into account when research agendas are set?”
The Commission would look at the structure of the decision-making bodies, their terms of reference, the decision making process, how various policy documents/reports from strategic bodies etc were used.

3) “How well do these mechanisms work?”
The Commission would analyse the systems and processes that are in place, in order to ascertain whether the mechanisms are adequate.

4) “What have been the implications for Research and Development?”
An exhaustive study would be impossible, so this would be carried out using specific case study examples. It would be important to chose examples across the whole spectrum of agricultural biotechnology, and not just focus on GM.


8. A footnote would explain that the work stream would focus on public sector research, but would also look at the private sector, particularly how public sector drivers influence private sector research.


Engaging the Public and Stakeholders

9. It would be useful to set up a public reference group, like that which was used in the Animals report. A series of workshops could be held through a facilitator/consultancy as before. During the first session, they would be asked for their views without any prior knowledge on issues, for example using questions such as how they see science and R&D, how they feel research agendas are set, what they would like to see in the future etc. During the second stage they would be provided with more information and asked for their opinions. At the third stage they would be asked to comment on the Commission’s draft findings and recommendations.
   
   
10. It was also agreed that a similar reference group of scientists would be useful. Members of this group would not be prominent high-level decision makers, but more junior scientists (graduate students, post-docs and junior group leaders) who would be asked for their views on how they felt agendas were shaped and what they would like to see in the future.



• Secretariat would speak to Anna, Jeff and Matthew and find out further details on how the public group was set up for the Animals report.



11. There would also be stakeholder meetings to gain further information.
    
    
    May Meeting
    
12. Howard Dalton, Ian Crute, Brian Johnson and Colin Tudge had all been confirmed for the next meeting.



13. The Commission would need to make clear to them that the session at the meeting would not be a ‘grilling’ and would not be confrontational, but an opportunity to ask them for their perspective on the situation and look for a steer on our proposals. The guests would be sent our draft project proposal with a list of key questions beforehand and would be asked for their views.



14. The proposed running of the session on May 5th would be as follows:
• Each Guest to have 5mins to introduce themselves and comment briefly on the proposed work. Questions would then be opened to the floor for 10mins.


• Howard Dalton would begin, followed by Professor Crute, Brian Johnson and then Colin Tudge.


• After each of the individual sessions, there would be an hour of general discussion with all 4 guests.
.

• After this the guests would depart and the Commission would hold a further hour of discussion, in the light of what they had heard.



Timeline

15. It was suggested this project should be completed within a year. A more detailed project plan is available (see Timeline for Research Agendas Workstream). A staged approach was suggested with outputs from each stage to be available as stand alone documents, published separately. All outputs would be re-published together with overall reflections and recommendations at the end of Stage 4.


Stage 1 – approx. April to August/September 2004
Information gathering on research drivers and mechanisms for taking into account public attitudes and policy priorities

Stage 2 – approx. September to December 2004/January 2005
Analysis of information and judgement on how well the mechanisms work, looking at specific examples. Some of this work to begin during Stage 1.

Stage 3 – approx September 2004 to February 2005
Run Public Reference Group and Scientists Reference Group.

Stage 4 – February/March 2005
Publish Reflections and Recommendations (and Results from Stakeholder Groups).


Additional Issues

16. The needs of developing countries would be considered as one of the drivers behind research agendas. The focus of this project would therefore be on UK research, but would include research relating to the needs of developing countries. The research agendas of the Department for International Development would therefore be included in the information gathering stage of this project.



17. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) would also be considered as one of the drivers behind research. If it arose as a major issue during the information gathering stage, the Commission would give it further priority within this workstream.



• Secretariat would look into the paper Releasing our Potential (1993) and the Foresight process to add to the background information on factors shaping research agendas.



18. Dr Sean Butler, a social scientist and IP lawyer had written to the AEBC expressing an interest in contributing to the Commission’s work in this area. He had attended the February meeting.



• Secretariat would not commit at this stage, due to uncertainty about the significance of IPR in the workstream, but would ask to see examples of his work.



19. The Core group planned to meet again on 18th May and this meeting would be open to any other Members who wanted to attend.