Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) Research Agendas Workstream

Meeting 18 May 2004

Paper RA1.2: Possible case studies for research agendas workstream

1.      As part of the Research Agendas workstream, the Core group is proposing to use a few case studies to look at the effects on specific areas of research and development (i) of the balance of key drivers behind research agendas and (ii) of the mechanisms used to take into account public attitudes and policy priorities. This would be a more realistic undertaking than an exhaustive survey of the effects on all agricultural biotechnology research and, if the case studies were carefully chosen, would generate more useful conclusions.

2.      From discussions with Commission members and stakeholders, a number of candidate case studies can be proposed. Further suggestions are still being sought from stakeholders. All of the areas discussed below are broad topics that would have to be defined more tightly for a case study. In addition, Members should bear in mind the need for a clear biotechnology angle in each case study:

a.      Plant Breeding
There are perceptions about the effect of a shift from publicly funded to privately funded crop research, and the neglect of “orphan crops” of low commercial significance but possible great benefit to society.
There have been some major exercises in public and stakeholder engagement related to this area. Aside from GM Nation?, a joint BBSRC/Science Museum consensus conference on plant biotechnology took place as early as 1994. The conclusions of a BBSRC consultation on Future Directions in crop science, to inform priorities over the next 10-20 years, have just been published.

A case study in this area could therefore first seek to address the perceptions about plant breeding, and second consider how such public and stakeholder engagement exercises have actually influenced research agendas?

b.      Soil Science
This is a crucial area of research, but the complaint that there has been a decline in soil science research is heard regularly. When questioned on this at the AEBC meeting on 5 May, Professor Ian Crute (Rothamsted Research) felt that there had been a decline in funding in absolute terms, but only in proportion to the rest of agricultural research. ‘Traditional’ techniques and methods were being used less, but were being replaced with others. Some members felt that the key question was not whether there has been a decline, but whether what was being done now was adequate.
This study could therefore ask how high-level research drivers have affected/are affecting soil science, allowing consideration of whether there is enough soil science research being done at the moment.

c.      Cross-Disciplinary Research
To achieve sustainability in agriculture will require a cross-disciplinary approach, and this should be taken into account in setting research agendas geared towards sustainability.  Attempts are being made to encourage cross-disciplinary research into agriculture, land use and rural affairs. For example, the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) is a joint ESRC, BBSRC and NERC programme with £20m funding over three years. An ESRC-funded transdisciplinary seminar series on approaches to sustainable farmland management is taking place throughout 2004.

A possible case study on cross-disciplinary working would mean looking at the mechanisms used for co-ordinating agendas between the various research funding bodies, as well as specific initiatives like RELU. It would also need to consider the effects of the cultural and methodological divide between scientists of different disciplines and especially scientists and social scientists.

d.     Private Sector
The Commission’s original proposal, as described in the 2002 AEBC Workplan, was to look at “the balance between publicly and privately funded research into agricultural and environmental biotechnology in terms of delivering ‘public goods’”, including a review of the research agendas of the major private interests. The research agendas core group proposes to focus on public sector research, but to consider as part of this how public research agendas affect privately funded research, and vice versa. How this would be done in practice at has not yet been discussed, but it could be treated as a case study. Alternatively, the public-private balance could be examined specifically in the context of a plant breeding case study (see above).

e.      Research for Developing Countries
The Research Agendas workstream will focus on UK funded research, but including any research relating to the needs of developing countries (e.g. DFID’s research). The Nuffield Council for Bioethics has recommended that Governments should fund a major expansion of GM-related research into tropical and sub-tropical staple foods, suitable for the needs of small-scale farmers. Guests at the AEBC meeting on 5 May felt that, after a move away from agricultural research for developing countries in the 1980s, developing countries were again high on the political agenda. Resources were beginning to be targeted again to this area, although still only a small proportion of total funding. Some Commission members have expressed a special interest in examining research for developing countries, and this could be done through a case study. This study could therefore ask how high-level research drivers have affected/are affecting the targeting of research funding towards developing countries’ needs.

3.      Which case studies do members want to focus on? How many case studies should we pursue, and in what way?