Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) Research Agendas Workstream

Meeting 18 May 2004

Paper RA1.1: aims and objectives of a public engagement/reference group exercise

1.      As part of the Research Agendas workstream, the core group has proposed a public engagement exercise, following the ‘reference group’ model of the Animal and Biotechnology study. Two groups – one composed of members of the public and the other of working scientists (junior level: PhD students, post-docs and young group leaders) – have been suggested.

2.      In order to go through the necessary planning and tendering process to recruit professional researchers in good time, we need to make clear decisions soon about exactly what the aims and objectives of the exercise should be.

What we want out of the exercise

3.      The aim of the public engagement exercise in the Animals and Biotechnology study was to ensure that the Commission’s work on the subject was “relevant to the issues as understood by the general public”.  Three workshops were held with the reference group, which was recruited to ensure that people from relatively under-represented groups were included:

a.      First workshop (July 2001) – participants were asked to discuss their attitudes towards animal and biotechnology in general, to get an idea of what the key public sensibilities were.

b.      Second (October 2001) – the same participants were asked to concentrate on their priorities for the regulatory and advisory systems, by comparing the current system with the AEBC’s latest thinking on a possible future system. Three of the group were invited to a sub-group meeting to explain their conclusions on this to the Commission.

c.      Final (February 2002) – four AEBC members presented their emerging conclusions on a future regulatory structure and discussed the participants’ reactions to this.

4.      If the intention with the Research Agendas exercise is to follow this structure very closely, the three workshops might tackle the following:

a.      First – participants’ general feelings about how research agendas should be decided and what the priorities should be.

b.      Second – participants’ thoughts on the current systems and mechanisms employed by research funders to set priorities, and views on the AEBC thinking on this.

c.      Final – presentation by the AEBC of their emerging conclusions and discussion with reference groups.

5.      However, it would be wise to think about the exercise at a more basic level before decided to mirror the Animals groups precisely:

6.      Aims of the exercise 

• Is the aim similar to the above  – i.e. to ensure that the Commission’s work on Research Agendas is relevant to the issues as understood by the general public/young scientists?
• If so, what does this mean in practice – what issues do we want to ask the groups about? e.g.

• How much involvement in setting research agendas do the group think the public should have?
• What are the groups’ views on public sector collaboration with industry?
• To what extent do the groups feel UK research should be targeted at aiding developing countries?
• How much openness/transparency do the groups expect? etc

Alternatively:              

• Do we want to use the reference groups to sample public views in order actually to feed into future priority setting – i.e. (as Robin suggested at the AEBC May meeting) to contribute to development of a set of social intelligence for basing research agendas?
• Do we want the reference groups to reach a consensus?
• Do we want the reference groups to write their own reports?
• Do we want the reference groups to contribute to the final conclusions (i.e. Commission to give up some of the responsibility for the final conclusions) or just to inform them?
• Do we want reference groups to contribute to the case studies (this will impact timings)?
• What kind of sample of public and scientists do we want to take for the reference groups (socially, geographically etc.)?

• If using two groups (public and scientists) do we want them to interact?
• Are there any other groups we want to involve in addition to the public and scientists e.g. NGOs (see Possible Methods below)?

7.      Possible Methods. Once we have decided on what we want from a public engagement exercise, it should be up to the practitioners whom we invite to tender to suggest appropriate methods, but the Commission can give a steer as to the methods it prefers. For example:

• Are we set on a traditional focus group method? Using the internet will lose the benefits of face-to-face interaction, but might offer efficiency and cost savings, while also providing flexibility in the form of allowing:
  • Several strands or groups which can be allowed interact at defined points in the process
  • Open as well as closed fora, so that any interested party could have their say as well as specially selected groups.
• Do we want the two (or more) groups to operate and contribute in exactly the same way, or should they be adapted to take into account their different compositions? For example, a more ‘light-touch’ approach with the science group may be possible, with different sorts of questions. E.g.
  • What do the scientists think about the way research agendas are set? (i.e. an insiders’ perspective?)
  • What would they like to change?

The tender process and timing

A) Before using consultants we have to write a business case for this and get it agreed. Anticipate this taking approx 1 week (assuming no complications)

B) DTI guidelines suggest that we will have to adopt some sort of tendering process given that this project will cost over £10000. (We estimate costs will be comparative to the Animals exercise, ie. £30000). There are therefore 2 options:

1.      Find suitable consultancy services on S-CAT
S-CAT is essentially a database of service providers that have already been through a tendering process, security cleared, financially checked etc. Therefore, by choosing a company on here saves some of the time and effort involved in a full blown tender. SCAT is advocated by DTI and we would have to outline a good case for not using this system.

However, there is a question whether the companies listed on SCAT would be suitable for our needs.  A number of potential candidates have been found but further investigation is needed to see if they would be suitable, and indeed interested.

·        Vantage point – Have conducted community surveys, citizens panels, local forums, focus groups etc for DFES, ODPM, JRF, EA etc

·        PA Consulting – Conduct focus groups and semi-structured interviews etc for DETR, Welsh Development Agency, European Commission etc

·        SR (part of Hedra Consortium) – Specialise in stakeholder and public consultation with emphasis on understanding attitudes to planning, transport and other technical projects.

·        Mott MacDonald/Vega – includes MORI Social Research Institute

    Once we have chosen companies to invite to tender, an invitation to tender would be sent out with a period of 2-3wks for companies to submit proposals. We would then have to evaluate them, interview and make a decision (approx 1-2weeks).

2.      Formal tendering process

If  we  decided there was no-one suitable on SCAT or wanted to use people outside of this database (including academics etc), we would have to do a full tender.

The first stage of this would be an advertisement on the AEBC website and/or Government Business Opportunities Journal seeking people to register interest in this. This would last approx 3wks

Then we would do a pre-qualifying sift and then invite a selection of companies to tender. The process followed would then be the same as above, approx 3wks.

We would also need to check financial security etc of these companies which would add some extra time to this process.

Therefore, this would take longer but give more flexibility in terms of the sorts of consultants we could use to undertake the work.

C) Once we have chosen the company to use, we will need some time with them to discuss the specifics of their proposals and make the necessary changes. Assume approx 2wks will be needed for this

D) The consultants would then have to recruit the reference groups. Assume approx 4weeks for this, however it will depend on the specific methods used.