Attendees: Matthew Freeman, Phil Dale, Sue Mayer, Helen Browning, Keekok Lee, Rosie Hails, Jeff Maxwell, Paul van Heyningen, Tonima Saha
1. It was felt that a definition was necessary to help set the context for the work, and this definition should take into account the case study topics. Once decided upon, the definition would have to be used consistently throughout the work. However, it was noted that other organisations may use different terminology and this would have to be recognised in terms of the information gathering paper. Moreover, establishing a definition would not prevent the group from commenting on areas that fall outside it (always bearing in mind our overall remit).
2. It was decided that a statement incorporating aspects of the 2 statements below would be used:
· “(Novel) scientific and technological intervention into biological production in agriculture”
· “The use of modern methods of molecular and cell biology for the improvements of crops”
ACTION – Secretariat to finalise a definition. Suggested definition:
“novel scientific and technological interventions in biological systems used in agriculture, particularly the use of modern methods of molecular and cell biology”
3. It was agreed that the first output from the workstream would be a paper on the information gathering phase, structured broadly as laid out in paper RA2.1
4. It was agreed that this would be presented in draft at the next Commission meeting in September.
ACTION - Secretariat to draft paper and aim to circulate to the group in mid-August.
ACTION – All to think about how/when the paper would be launched, for discussion at the next subgroup meeting (1 September – see below)
ACTION - Members to send Secretariat any relevant papers or references to help in drafting the paper, particularly concerning historical changes in science policy.
5. In addition, it was agreed that this should include a historical introduction to set the scene for the situation today. This would outline how science policy, drivers, delivery mechanisms etc had changed over the years and their impact on research structure etc. This would be based on facts and an analysis of the effects of policy changes, but not include judgement on whether these changes or their effects were ‘good’ or ‘bad’. If possible, the historical context should also be included in each of the individual sections on each funding organisation to illustrate how priorities had changed over time.
6. It was agreed that this information paper would include some preliminary analysis, in terms of highlighting some issues/questions that arose from the information.
7. It could also include an early scoping of the case studies, (or else the preliminary scoping could form a separate document to be circulated simultaneously - see details below).
8. It was agreed that information should be found on the selected bodies outlined in the meeting paper RA2.1. Additionally, Rockefeller, Leverhulme, Wellcome and Nuffield Trusts/Charities should be included. European framework programmes and information on research funded by the relevant European Commission DGs should also be included. The private sector should be covered in terms of a broad brush picture of how funding had changed over the years, and consideration of the influence of the private sector on public sector research drivers.
Public Consultation (Ref. Meeting Paper RA 2.3)
9. In the first instance, the information paper would be put on the web and circulated to those who had contributed to it or were referred to in it. It was also agreed to find two people to referee the paper before placing it on the web.
ACTION - Members and Secretariat to consider who might be suitable to act as referee for this purpose
10. The paper would then be used as a basis for a wider public consultation on the key questions of the workstream (around October/November 2004.)
11. It would also be helpful to inform the public and stakeholder engagement exercise.
12. A stakeholder meeting would then be held (probably early 2005) to discuss emerging conclusions of the workstream.
Case Studies (Ref Meeting Paper 2.2)
13. There was a need to prioritise on 1 or 2 case studies and to pin down what they would look like.
14. All agreed plant breeding would be a suitable case study and this would look at how research was structured, what effects the work undertaken, and if/how public engagement had affected research in this area.
15. In addition to looking at the 4 main workstream questions, the study would look at issues such as:
· What have been the changes over the years in political drivers, research structure, emphasis on different crops etc?
· Is enough public good plant breeding research being done?
· How much of the plant breeding research is centred around biotechnology?
· How easily is the basic knowledge transferred for practical use in crops?
· What are the impediments to progress?
· What is the influence of the private sector in different aspects of research (eg. basic vs. strategic)?
· What mechanisms exist to nurture research innovation?
· Contrasts between plant breeding in a range of specific crops
16. There was agreement that soil science was likely to be the second case study topic. It would be necessary to be more precise about what was meant by soil science, and the definition “soil structure, health and fertility” could be used. Amongst other things, this case study would raise interesting issues around the way that lack of science and innovation can hinder progress, in spite of the relevant policy drivers and end-user needs etc.
17. It was felt that the issues that were to be covered in the interdisciplinary research case-study could be addressed through the other case studies.
18.
A developing countries study could look at some of the
non-commercial issues not obviously covered within the other topics. However,
it was noted that we would have to be careful that the scientific issues did
not get caught up in the wider issues around developing countries. It was also
felt that it may be necessary to bring in outside expertise for this project
as this was an area where the Commission had limited experience themselves. It
was agreed that
a separate case study would not be conducted on developing countries,
but that the issues
would be considered within the plant breeding case study..
ACTION - Secretariat to start scoping plant breeding and soil science, with the intention of starting work in earnest on these in the autumn. (NB although scoping might be done together to achieve some synergy, the actual reports would probably be staggered, with plant breeding being given initial priority.)
19. Once the scoping was completed, it might be useful to get a scientist (e.g. Alan Gray) or policy analyst outside the Commission to work with the Secretariat on the case studies.
ACTION - Members to think of people that could potentially fulfil this role. Secretariat to look into financial constraints
20. The October subgroup meeting could be used to discuss the first case study with experts in order to have an early draft by the December Commission meeting. Work on the case studies could usefully feed into the public and stakeholder engagement exercises.
Issues
21. A number of cross-cutting issues were identified which the group agreed should be addressed throughout this workstream, but would not necessarily involve a specific case study on that topic. These included:
· The effect of patenting/IPR, especially on public sector research
· The effect of the private sector on public bodies
· Possible comparisons of research funding systems in different countries
· Social and ethical issues highlighted through research funding decisions
· Research for developing countries
· Interdisciplinary research
· Balance between basic, applied and developmental research
22. Members agreed with the responses as set out in paper RA2.4.
23. The next Commission Meeting in September would focus on Non-Food Crops and the time allocated to the research agendas topic would be used to discuss the draft information paper.
24. The December Meeting would be used to a) look at the draft of the case studies paper, b) discuss some of the issues and themes emerging from the information gathering, case studies and consultation, and c) get an update from consultants on the public and stakeholder engagement work.
25. It was agreed that the group should meet again on:
· Wednesday 1st September, 2.00-5.00pm, 1 Victoria Street
· Tuesday 19th October, 2.00-5.00pm, 1 Victoria Street
· Friday 26th November, 2.00-5.00pm, 1 Victoria Street
ACTION – Members to send the Secretariat details of their availability over August in order to plan their input into planning of the public and stakeholder engagement exercise, and the information gathering paper.
