Note of Research Agendas Group Meeting 19 October 2004

Attendees: Matthew Freeman, Sue Mayer, Helen Browning, Keekok Lee, Rosie Hails, Jeff Maxwell, Robin Grove-White, Paul van Heyningen, Tonima Saha

Research Agendas Consultation

In discussion on the draft summary and analysis paper, the following points were raised:

1. In the introduction it needed to be made more explicit that the project was focusing on public sector research and outline the reasons for this



2. The observation on the gap in ‘near market’ research needed to include an explanation that Government funding in this area had ceased with the expectation that this would be filled by industry



3. It was felt that scientists had greater autonomy over research than had been suggested in the paper, especially at the level of specific research projects.



4. The section on the private sector should include more about industry influence on the public sector, and a recognition that some public sector research (e.g. risk assessment work) was carried out as a result of the product development work done in the public sector. This section should also include a table comparing public and private research spend in this field.



5. A short section on the key points about the EU Framework programmes should be added



6. It should be noted that the AFRC focused mainly on what would today be categorised as strategic and strategic applied research during the 70s and 80s.



7. It needed to be clarified that the Government Departments and Research Councils differed in the sorts of research they carried out and the ‘cultures’ of the institution. Research Councils and some research institutes of the Devolved Administrations had greater autonomy and conducted less directed research than (UK) Government Departments whose research centred mainly on meeting policy needs.



8. The table showing representation on various research committees should be broadened to include other ‘user’ groups.



9. The consultation questions should include a question on the relationship between the public and private sector, and the influence of the private sector on public research. Product and process development should also be added as a driver for consideration under the wealth creation drivers in Question 3.



10. The letter that would accompany the consultation papers needed to explain that this work would focus mainly on the public sector. It should also explain that this consultation would be valuable in helping the Commission provide recommendations to Government and aid policy development. The letter should make clear that the Commission recognises the commitment required to provide a response and would be grateful for any replies. It should also state that the Commission would welcome contributions, not just from scientists, but from all research ‘users’.


ACTION: Secretariat to update papers to reflect these comments and send out for consultation w/c 25 October.

In discussion on the case studies the following points were raised:
11. It was agreed that the case studies should look at how research priorities have changed over the last 20years, what has driven research these changes, and what have been the positive and negative implications of these changes.



12. Conducting case studies on both soil science and plant breeding would enable the Commission to study different implications for an area that is highly commercial against one that was not. The historical perspective in the plant breeding case study could also be used to look at the implications for areas that had been encouraged by Government.



13. The two studies did not need to be conducted identically, but would need to be comparable. It was noted that there was limited time available to complete these studies as the majority of the work needed to be completed by January 2005.



14. In discussion on soil science it was noted that there were two different strands within this - agricultural management of soils, and the microbiological research. These two areas adopted different approaches to research and it was questioned whether there was sufficient interaction between them. It was also questioned whether a barrier to progress in the area was a lack of technology. It was noted that although soil science had no product associated with it, soil management techniques had wider benefits, including commercial ones.



15. It was noted that the Commission should not imply that “wealth creation” was a bad thing, and should clearly acknowledge its value as a driver behind research. However, it was noted that the agents of wealth creation were varied and inter-related, and it should also made clear that wealth creation should not be the only focus – and other ‘quality of life’ benefits should be considered. This was perhaps an issue to cover in the final report on the workstream.



16. It would be useful to look back at the Curry Commission’s recommendations on ‘orphan crops’, and to receive an update from the Defra Sustainable Food and Farming Research Priorities Group.



17. It was agreed that Rosie Hails and Jeff Maxwell would champion the work on soil science, and that Phil Dale and Sue Mayer would take on this role for the plant breeding work.


ACTION: Secretariat to begin work on case studies

ACTION: Case study champions to send Secretariat relevant papers, contacts, information etc as soon as possible. Additionally, Jeff to speak to colleagues to get the historical details on soil science research from an agricultural perspective, Rosie to speak to colleagues regarding NERC’s perspective, and Helen to consider whether there were any gaps in soil science from a practitioners perspective.


18. The next meeting would be on 26th November and the agenda would include a brainstorm on emerging thoughts and conclusions, further discussion on case studies, and an update on stage 2 of the public engagement work.