Meeting 20 July 2004
Paper RA2.4: SEERAD comments on workstream
1. Following a meeting in May between the secretariat and officials in various Government departments to discuss the AEBC’s workplan, Alison Douglas of SEERAD fed back comments by e-mail. This paper forms the background to a discussion of how each of these points should be taken into account in the workstream.
2. The points relating to the research agendas workstream are summarised below (the full e-mail is annexed), with commentary by the secretariat.
· An international dimension would be desirable, as this provides some of the drivers for the UK research agenda, because European funding is significant, and for the sake of comparison.
3. The research agendas scoping document says that “the study will be restricted to UK-funded research, while recognising that research is an international activity”. However, given this comments from SEERAD (also made by NAWAD), paper RA2.1 suggests including EU and international bodies as research funders in the proposed information gathering paper. Nevertheless, as resources are limited, the focus will need to remain centred on UK-funded research.
· The Commission should be aware of the BBSRC’s Crop Science Review and of the European Commission’s European biotech strategy/action plan (Life sciences and biotechnology: A strategy for Europe, published in 2002).
4. The Commission and secretariat are aware of these publications. A European Commission vision for plant genomics and biotechnology, Plants for the Future, has also recently been published. All of these will be taken into account in the consideration of drivers behind research agendas in the proposed information gathering paper (see paper RA2.1).
· A number of public sector funding bodies (including SEERAD) now emphasise multi-disciplinary approaches, which incorporate a socio-economic dimension into research.
5. The incorporation of a socio-economic dimension into research was discussed at the Commission’s meeting in Aberdeen, particularly in looking at the work of the Macaulay Institute. This issue is likely to be a key element of a case study looking at cross-disciplinary research.
· There is a need to distinguish between research aiming to underpin the biotech sector and modern molecular research. The former is a small part of the total spend, whilst spend on the latter is high.
6. The Commission intends to cover both types of research in its work, but must ensure that it is alert to this distinction.
· A more exact definition of biotechnology is needed for the purposes of the workstream.
7. The research agendas scoping document says that “a broad definition of biotechnology will be used, encompassing more than just genetic modification”. This reflects a wish among members to move away from the GM focus of past reports to a broader consideration of biotechnology issues that affect agriculture and the environment. However, it does result in an open-ended definition of biotechnology that could be seen as too imprecise for this work, particularly in communicating its scope to third parties. Possible more precise definitions that could be adopted, in order of breadth with widest first, include:
·
The use of living organisms to
solve problems and make useful products
http://www.ncbiotech.org/biotech101/glossary.cfm
·
(Novel) scientific and
technological intervention into biological production in agriculture
definition discussed
at first meeting of research agendas core group 8 April 2004
·
The use of modern methods of
molecular and cell biology for the improvement of crops
definition specific to plant biotech, but could be extrapolated, from Murphy,
DJ (2003) Agricultural biotechnology and oil crops – current uncertainties
and future potential.
·
Biotechnology is much more than
the production of genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs). For example,
DNA-fingerprinting and genomic profiling are new biotechnological techniques
that can be used with great effect in accelerating the selection of new crop
varieties in conventional, non-transgenic breeding programmes.
from Murphy DJ (2002)
Biotechnology: its impact and future prospects
·
A term designating the use of
genetic engineering for practical purposes, notably the production of proteins
in living organisms or some of their components.
http://www.nccr-oncology.ch/en/glossary/glossary.htm
8. Do members feel that a more precise definition of biotechnology should be adopted for this workstream and, if so, what?
AEBC Secretariat, July
2004
Annex:
E-mail from SEERAD on AEBC workstreams, 21 May 2004
Paul/Tonima/Patrick
Following Wednesday’s meeting I thought it might be useful to feed back some of the comments which I have received from colleagues in SEERAD regarding the two workstreams.
Firstly, I would reiterate a general comment which was made at the meeting on both workstreams; that there is considerable work being undertaken by others in these fields to which the scoping documents do not make reference. It would therefore be important to identify the unique contribution which AEBCs work would provide and to avoid duplication.
On the individual workstreams:
Research Agendas
* The document mentions that “a broad definition of biotechnology will be used encompassing more than just genetic modification”. Biotech is a very broad field and AEBC probably want to adopt a narrower definition;
* There is a need to distinguish between research which is aiming to underpin the biotech sector and modern molecular research which is using techniques such as molecular biology and gene cloning and gene expression/functional genomics studies in an attempt to obtain knowledge about gene function. Research underpinning the biotech sector or research which is aimed at a GM product is actually quite a small part of the total spend, whilst the spend on molecular type research is high;
* Would concur with Huw’s point that an international dimension would be desirable, as this provides some of the drivers for the UK research agenda, because European funding (esp through the Framework Programme which now seeks to increase coordination between national funders) is significant, and for the sake of comparison;
* The Commission should be aware of the BBSRC’s Crops Science review published last week http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/reports/crop_sci_review12_05_04.pdf which proposes that more emphasis should be given to crop science rather than plant science and to exploiting genomic info for both GM and non-GM approaches to improving crop performance. A high level steering committee will oversee implementation of the new research strategy;
* The Commission should also be aware of the European Commission’s European biotech strategy/action plan (“Life sciences and biotechnology: A strategy for Europe”, published in 2002). This strategy aims to have a thriving European biotech sector and to position Europe as the world’s most competitive, knowledge-based economy. Within this programme the Commission is trying to bring science and society closer together;
* A number of public sector funding bodies (including SEERAD) now emphasise multi-disciplinary approaches which incorporate a socio-economic dimension into research.
Non-Food Crops
* The main determinant of whether farmers switch production will be market pull – land will only be switched to non-food production if farmers can earn more money that way either from profits or by subsidy/tax breaks;
* How much land can we afford to/do we mean to move out of food production? (balancing risks of dependence on others for food supply);
* Apart from extensive DTI work and the establishment of the National Non-Food Crop Centre in York (CSL), the Commission also should be aware of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report “Biomass as a renewable energy resource”. The BBSRC Crop Science review is also relevant, as are several research projects (one at Macaulay is on “Energy from crops, timber & agricultural residues”. (This study takes a number of crops in turn (straw, animal manure, forestry residues, wood processing residues, short rotation coppice, short rotation forestry, energy grasses, liquid biofuels) and summarises existing knowledge, key constraints to development, development paths, SWOT analysis, and ends each section with recommended actions. The report will be in the public domain shortly and a workshop is planned);
* The rational should make reference to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity as this formed part of the 1992 Earth Summit response to sustainable development as much as the Convention on Climate Change which is listed here. Following on from this it may be worth including crops grown for biodiversity benefit in the list of non-food crops. A large area of agricultural land in Scotland is on in set-aside or in agri-environment schemes specifically being managed to create semi-natural habitats or to provide food or cover for wildlife, where it is taken out of production. I am not sure what all the potential links to biotechnology might be, but, there is an on-going discussion on the wildflower breeding programmes for seed sale to farmers entering the Rural Stewardship Scheme.
I hope this is helpful.
Alison
