Note of Research Agendas Group Meeting 26 November 2004


Attendees: Matthew Freeman, Sue Mayer, Rosie Hails, Jeff Maxwell (Paul van Heyningen, Tonima Saha)

A) Discussion on Case Studies

Plant Breeding Case Study

1. It was agreed that due to lack of available expertise on the Commission, it would be necessary to obtain some external expertise to help with this case study – ideally someone from both the public and private plant breeding sectors. A number of sources of additional information were suggested including: Annual Reports from the major public research institutes, the Nuffield Council report, National Seeds lists from Defra, BSPB and SCRI. It would be useful to look at which crops had funding from breeding (and which traits had been studied) before and after the period of major change.



2. Phil Dale’s paper outlining the case for more public good plant breeding would be a useful starting point, along with the background paper that the secretariat had written. These could be sent out to possible contributors asking for comments.


Action – members to suggest contacts and further sources of information

Soil Science Case Study

3. The historical background paper that Jeff had written was a very useful starting point. The analysis and discussion on this should include a note on the cyclical nature of research priorities and the context behind this. For example, there had been a downturn in soil science in the 1980s when BBSRC had to rationalise their research and soil science had reached a plateau at the time. More recently, with the advent of new technologies and the recognition of soil as an important environmental science, research in soil science had been revived. The balance of research funders of soil science have also changed as the nature and purpose of the research has changed. For example, with the focus on soils now more on environmental rather than agricultural issues, NERC has been taking a greater interest whereas before it was primarily an area for BBSRC.



4. It was now necessary to build on the information that the secretariat had collected on research currently being conducted in the relevant institutes. Specifically, what spend was allocated to soil science, the specific focus of the various soil science research programmes, what questions were being studied and who decided that they were the correct questions to be focussing on.



5. It would be useful to consider work in the private sector and organic farming organisations such as Elm Tree Farm and Doubleday could be contacted. The paper should also be sent round to experts for input and ‘peer review’.


Action – Rosie Hails to suggest contacts at CEH. All Members to suggest further contacts and sources of information


6. The background paper should have some more information on the EU level drivers and also consider the modelling of pesticide movement through soils and (Note: these changes have already been made)


Action – Secretariat to update the papers to with an outline of next steps for the project and to look for further sources of information and experts to help with this work.

Agreed – The output from both studies would be short (6-8 pages) essay style papers. The amended papers would be tabled as first drafts at the Commission meeting on 9th December.

B) Brainstorm on emerging themes and early conclusions

7. The group then discussed their initial thoughts on themes that had occurred throughout the work so far:



8. Maintaining scientific excellence was important and this must remain a primary criterion in decision making.



9. It was becoming evident that technology itself could be an important driver, and genomics as a ‘platform technology’ was a particularly good example of this. However, there was a risk of the technology becoming an end in itself and ensuring the correct questions were asked of the technology.



10. The soil science case study had illustrated that it was important to retain competence in “unfashionable” areas of science to ensure long-term flexibility and the ability to respond to new developments and crises etc. The importance of scientists being alert and adaptable to the wider context in which they are working was also highlighted. Conversely, it was evident in e.g. pedology (the study of soil origins and soil profile) that if expertise in a certain area was allowed to disappear, it was difficult to build it up again.



11. There was a feeling that the drive for research to promote ‘quality of life’ had been lost. Similarly, it was felt that there had been a decline in ‘public good’ research that had no wealth creating value. Research that created wealth should be welcomed, but it was important to recognise that some research (e.g. environmental research) had no immediate wealth creating value but could prevent things going wrong which could then have major cost implications.



12. Basic research was also important in helping to provide a resource to respond to future issues. Additionally, it was beneficial in aiding the development of new technologies and it should not be overlooked in the pursuit of more short-term applied goals.



13. It seemed that in research areas where there was a diversity of drivers, there were less likely to be problems as the balance of drivers helped to avoid gaps and redundancies.



14. It was noted that it would be important to consider the issue of where and when it was appropriate to involve the public in research decision making (upstream vs downstream, strategic vs applied etc.) and how to integrate public involvement with other factors in the decision making process.



15. Methods of public involvement also needed to be considered. Many organisations were now using more public involvement techniques and whilst this was a positive step, there was little evidence of its effectiveness to date.



16. It would be important for the Commission to explain clearly their rationale behind public engagement. Andy Stirling had outlined 3 specific arguments which were briefly: a) accountability where public spending was involved and a failure of the systems of representative democracy (in science and technology), b) better quality decisions as a result of broader participation and representation of a range of different views; c) public engagement was sometimes done so as to be ‘seen to do it’.


Action: Sue Mayer to send Secretariat and Members a reference to Andy Stirling’s paper


17. It was decided that the group would do some brainstorming on early conclusions and recommendations with all Members at the AEBC meeting in December. A paper would be circulated to stimulate discussion.


C) Future meetings

18. Matthew, Sue, Phil or Rosie were due to meet OLR on 6th January to discuss findings from Stage 2 of the public and stakeholder engagement exercise and plans for Stage 3.



19. The next Research Agendas Group meetings would be planned for w/c 17th January 2005 and w/c 7th February 2005.