Note of Research Agendas Core Group Meeting 18th May 2004

Attendees: Matthew Freeman, Sue Mayer, Phil Dale, Jeff Maxwell, Keekok Lee, Rosie Hails, Helen Browning and Paul van Heyningen, Tonima Saha (secretariat)


Discussion on Public Engagement Exercise

1. The new HMT 10yr innovation framework was likely to have an impact on research agendas and it would be important to follow development of this carefully and factor this into the workstream as appropriate.



2. The problem of funding timescales and ‘short-termism’ in research was noted and it was felt this could be investigated through the case studies



3. Some high-level questions to ask all stakeholders should be developed. These could then be adapted to the specific needs of the target groups to be consulted. These questions would be a starting point from which to draw out feelings on e.g. levels of openness in research that were expected, and then look further into the specifics of how research agendas were set. Some potential questions were suggested:
   What purpose should science serve? What should research do for society? Who should be involved in setting research agendas? To what extent should public opinion be considered when deciding what research is paid for through Government funding? What are the strengths and weaknesses of research?
   ACTION – Members to email suggested questions to the secretariat



4. There were many different types of ‘public’ and we should ensure we tried to tap into the wide range of views



5. It would be more difficult to engage the public on the topic of research agendas than it had been to discuss animals and biotechnology. Innovative methods would be needed.



6. In the early stages, it would be important to get the public’s ‘fresh’ perspectives, ‘lived experiences’ and then compare them to the Commission’s thinking, rather than trying to sell our ideas.



7. At the next stage it would be useful to present the public reference group with information from our information gathering and stakeholder consultation to encourage them to think about the many different perspectives and trade-offs that had to be made. It was agreed the public reference group would also have access to material emerging from the case studies.



8. The original plan had been to have 2 reference groups – one with the public and one with junior scientists. Some felt that scientists were like any other stakeholder and should not be treated differently.
   AGREED – To run one reference group with members of the public. Secretariat to draft tender document for this work.
   TO BE DECIDED – how to consult with/engage with the junior scientists



9. It was essential to have some form of input from interested parties outside of the formal reference group model.



10. The ‘middle managers’ within funding bodies were the likely people that would have an important perspective about the ‘black box’ of funding decision-making and attempts should be made to engage them.



11. The end-users of the research (e.g. farmers, agri-business) were also identified as an important group to engage in this project.



12. A useful distinction could be made between the interested parties, for example: end-users of research (e.g. farmers, consumers); those involved in research and agenda setting (middle managers in funding bodies, scientists), and other stakeholders (NGOs, environmental bodies).
    ACTION - Members to send suggestions for stakeholders they feel should be consulted



13. Different views would emerge depending on the mechanisms used to engage with people – Evidence taking in Commission meetings would provide different reactions than interactive discussions in e.g. focus groups



14. A number of methods for finding information from stakeholders was suggested:
    
    • It was agreed that a written consultation would be a useful exercise as it would be a relatively quick and easy way to get the views of a range of stakeholders. If done early in the project, the written replies could be used to find groups of stakeholders that it would be useful to conduct further work with. However, it was felt that responses were likely to be along ‘party lines’ as opposed to real insight into the views of the people those groups represented.
    
    
    • People could be invited to discuss/give oral evidence to the subgroups. Some felt that a more informality would be appropriate
    
    
    • Secretariat (possibly with Commission members) could hold ‘structured interviews’ with the key individuals. Some felt that closed interviews were against the AEBC principles of openness
    
    
    • The Commission could contract professionals to conduct interviews
    
    
15. A stakeholder meeting towards the end of the work would be useful in order to test emerging conclusions
    ACTION – Secretariat to factor into timetable



16. It was noted that Phil McNaughton (Lancaster University) had run some small ‘focus groups’/workshops with groups of people with particular interests (e.g. pet lovers). It may be useful to adopt a similar approach to some of the stakeholder groups in this project, especially the end-users who would be harder to reach and unlikely to respond to formal consultations etc
    ACTION – Secretariat to draft a plan in preparation for tendering on ways of engaging with various stakeholder groups, outside of the reference group model, especially end-users and scientists.



17. It was felt it would be useful to explore a range of different consultants who could carry out this sort of work.



Discussion on case studies
AGREED - All the topics suggested (plant breeding, soil science, cross-disciplinary research, and developing countries' research) would be useful to look into. Issues around the private sector could be covered under the other case studies, plant breeding in particular
ACTION – Secretariat to start scoping the case studies and get input from Members on specific issues the case studies should cover


18. It was agreed that it would not be possible to run all case studies simultaneously and it was decided to prioritise them once the scoping work on them had been carried out



19. Some of the issues around developing countries could also be covered in the plant breeding work (e.g. in terms of orphan crops). Although this project would be focused on UK research, the arguments about localisation of research and technology transfer would have to be raised for this work to be credible.



20. It was suggested that there would be some common questions for all case studies, linked to the 4 key questions of this project e.g. what agendas are driving this area of research? How are they balanced in principle and in practice? What are the implications for this in terms of what research is carried out?



July Meeting

21. The AEBC meeting would be held in Aberdeen on the afternoon of 7th July (Research Agendas discussion) and the Morning of 8th July (Non-Food Agriculture discussion)



22. Maggie Gill from the Science Strategy Group had already been informally invited to speak at this meeting. Jeff Maxwell and Alison Douglas had suggestions for further people to invite.