AEBC 04/19

Report of Stage 1 discussion groups with public and stakeholders on “who should be involved in setting research agendas?”

Produced by Opinion Leader Research on behalf of the AEBC

1. Contents

1. Contents 2

2. Executive Summary...... 3

3. Background 6

3.1. Aims and objectives 6

3.2. Methodology... 7

4. Key Findings - Public......... 10

4.1. Trust in science 10

4.2. Who is the research for? 14

4.3. The current funding system 21

4.4. Who is currently setting the agenda?. 22

4.5. Who should set the agenda? 22

5. Key Findings - Scientists.... 29

5.1. Trust in science 29

5.2. The current funding system 31

5.3. Who is the research for? 35

5.4. Who is currently setting the agenda?. 35

5.5. Who should set the agenda? 36

6. Key Findings - Field staff 40

6.1. Trust in science 40

6.2. The current funding system 42

6.3. Who is the research for? 42

6.4. Who is currently setting the agenda?. 44

6.5. Who should set the agenda? 44

7. Key Findings - Farmers...... 47

7.1. Trust in science 47

7.2. The current funding system 49

7.3. Who is the research for? 49

7.4. Who is currently setting the agenda?. 50

7.5. Who should set the agenda? 51

8. Appendix 1 – Discussion Guides....... 55

2. Executive Summary

In this section of the report we have drawn out the key similarities and differences across the four stakeholder audiences consulted: public, scientists, field staff and land managers. Each stakeholder group is then reported on separately.

Although the four audiences clearly have different perspectives and agendas, there are a number of key themes that are common to all.

All groups acknowledge the positive impact of science in advancing quality of life and contributing to the success of the UK economy. Although scientists are sceptical about their abilities to do so, the public are able to identify and appreciate how scientific advancements make a difference to their everyday life. However, there is a dichotomy that whilst participants are generally positive about science per se, all groups flag up the issue of declining levels of trust.

There is a broad consensus that there are low levels of public trust in science and scientists (although there are mixed views on whether this has declined in recent years or whether it has always been at a relatively low base). This is a very topical issue and not just confined to the scientific world; it is apparent that the public are more liable to question ‘authority’ and trust differently ie no longer automatically trusting figures from the establishment but instead are reliant on their own experiences, their friends and in some cases intermediaries like health professionals. The extent to which participants are concerned by reduced trust levels varies. Some feel that it is a huge issue as a mistrustful public means that research funding can be diverted from areas which could offer potential benefits (in terms of advancements in quality of life or economically for the UK). However, some participants feel that reduced levels of trust are, in fact, a healthy phenomenon and mean that the public no longer have a ‘blind faith’ in authority figures.

All groups (apart from scientists) spontaneously mention the impact of scientific ‘mistakes’ on the level of trust (citing examples such as DDT, asbestos and thalidomide). These examples appear to have contributed to diminishing level of trust in experts (in spite of the public indicating that they are tolerant of some human error). The public, farmers and field staff also point to the increased use of scientific experts by the media who are brought in to support contradictory evidence; this confuses the public and means that they simply do not know who to believe and trust.

There is general agreement that the current system of funding has some flaws; that the interests of various funding sources can distort research agendas (and divert funds from particular areas) and that, as a result, there are numerous examples of areas where there is a gap in funding. Farmers, as a group, are most critical of the current system, in terms of it not meeting their current needs and there being a fundamental lack of consultation. They feel that they have no say in what research is conducted. They are also most concerned about the perceived reduction in Government funding for research and have a strong belief that commercial companies are a largely negative influence.

Scientists and field staff tend to have a more pragmatic approach to commercial companies’ involvement, and are more likely to be concerned about political pressures (meaning that some research is effectively ‘off the table’) and a lack of co-ordination in the process (meaning that research duplicates rather than augments existing knowledge).

The question of who research is being conducted for provokes an interesting response. Scientists are open about the primary driver for research being their own individual interest. However, the public and farmers are suspicious of some scientists’ motives for conducting research and are most supportive of research which is conducted for the public good (and their own benefit directly) rather than research for the sake of academic interest.

All groups, other than scientists, are concerned about the influence of individual scientists, who are perceived to ‘empire build’ or actively pursue their own narrow interests to the exclusion of the greater (national) good. Scientists, on the other hand, feel that agenda and priority setting is often outside of their control because they need to follow the funding and are sometimes dictated to external factors, such as the demands of the Research Assessment Exercise.

The public, field staff and farmers believe that the current system is not particularly accountable or transparent. Scientists are aware of this and of their ‘public’ image. They acknowledge that how they communicate with the outside world could be improved but are frustrated that their work can be ‘spun’ by other organisations who are more skilled in the art of communication.

All groups mention the role of the media. Scientists, farmers, field staff and many of the public feel that the media focuses on ‘scare stories’ and sensationalises key issues. The scientists are particularly concerned about the impact this has on public opinion. The public are less exercised by this, some feel that they read the press with this inherent bias in mind and that the media can, in some instances, play an important ‘policing’ role in bringing the debate to the public attention.

There is also broad consensus about the poor quality of scientific education and particularly the science taught in secondary schools. The groups are also largely critical about the scientific broadcasting feeling that it is of lower quality than used to be the case.

All groups call for a collaborative approach to agenda setting and articulate the need for an (independent) body which can see the bigger picture, can establish national priorities and identify research which is in the national interest. However, many also feel that scientific ‘entrepreneurship’ should be encouraged and want reassurance that too many different stakeholders inputting into the research agenda setting process would not stifle creativity and scientific experimentation.

There is broad consensus that there should be a ‘mixed economy’ in terms of research funding and that having different funding sources means that there is a system of ‘checks and balances’.

There are mixed views on which stakeholders should be involved in agenda setting. As a group the scientists are least open to members of the public and farmers being involved or having a say. They voice a number of objections – some opposed to the concept of public or wider stakeholder engagement and some more practical objections. There is a prevalent view that the public have their opportunity to take part in elections and their mandate for involvement stops there. There are also strong concerns that the public will not be sufficiently informed or interested to play a meaningful role and that their involvement has significant risk. They fear the public having a ‘kneejerk’ response to issues and rejecting research avenues based on an emotional rather than rational consideration of the advantages and disadvantages.

Indeed, discussions with the public indicate that some individuals do, in fact, respond to some issues instinctively. For example, some reject cloning because as a ‘gut feeling’ they believe it to be wrong’ rather than supporting their view with factual evidence.

There are some participants in the other groups (public, farmers and field staff) who hold similar views to the scientists. The majority of others, however, are more receptive to the concept of public involvement, believing that the public would bring an element of ‘common sense’ and ‘ground’ the process. Importantly many feel that the public should have a say on some of the key ethical questions raised by the research. There is, however, some disagreement on the timing of public engagement (upstream or application stage) and the mechanisms for actually making the process work.

3. Background

3.1. Aims and objectives

The Commission is undertaking a new piece of work looking at what shapes the research agenda in agricultural biotechnology. Further, it is interested in identifying the drivers behind the research agendas of the major public sector funding bodies in agricultural biotechnology, considering the mechanisms used in these bodies to set priorities and how successful they are at managing the various drivers.

Given the amount of public money spent in research in this area the AEBC commissioned Opinion Leader Research to seek to understand how the public, and those with a stake, but perhaps not a strong voice in this work, feel about the research that is currently undertaken.

This is a three-stage consultation with farmers, scientists, field advisors and the general public. This report summarises the results of the first stage of qualitative research, which aimed to explore unprompted views of science and research agendas.

With the general public the following issues were explored:

· Perceptions of what scientific research actually includes

· Levels of knowledge and awareness of perceived activities / current activities

· Sources of information

· Perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of scientific research generally

· Discussion over value and worth to society

As far as possible discussions with stakeholders were made as comparable as possible to the discussions held with the public. Particular issues explored were:

· Their experience of the agricultural biotechnology process

· Levels of knowledge and awareness of perceived activities / current activities

· Sources of information

· Perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of scientific research generally

· Discussion over value and worth to society

· Perceptions of advantages and value to them in their position / in the organisation that they work for

· Perceived effectiveness

· Suggested areas of improvement

3.2. Methodology

This report outlines the findings from the first of the three stages of research.

Throughout the report, reference is made to views of ‘scientists’, ‘farmers’, ‘field staff’ and the ‘public’. This has been done to ensure that it is clear which stakeholder group the participants belong and is not meant to imply that they are representative of the wider population as a whole. Whilst we have recruited a broad spectrum of participants (to ensure a spread by key demographics and geographical location), the consultation is qualitative and is not, by definition, aiming to be statistically robust.

3.2.1. Stage 1

A series of nine group discussions were conducted between 5^th and 12^th October:

The members of the public were recruited by our network of recruiters using a combination of on-street and referred recruitment. Individuals were recruited to a detailed specification to ensure a mix by key demographic characteristics. This method of recruitment avoids self-selection and those individuals who are the ‘usual suspects’ ie those who tend to participate in public meetings. Individuals with a scientific background were specifically excluded.

Members of the public were paid an incentive to attend and asked to sign up to participating in all three research stages.

Six groups with the general public:

Group 1	Bristol	ABC1	Women
Group 2	Bristol	ABC1	Men
Group 3	Bristol	C2DE	Men
Group 4	Cardiff	C2DE	Women
Group 5	Perth	ABC1	Mixed
Group 6	Perth	C2DE	Mixed

Three groups with the following stakeholder audiences were also conducted. These participants were approached directly and asked if they would be willing to take part. They were selected to ensure a diversity of experiences ie farmers with different types of farms and scientists with a variety of specialisms. Scientists who currently have a voice in funding decisions were specifically excluded.

Farmers :

· From Nottingham, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire

· From the following types of farm:

· Mixed farm (arable and cows)

· Mixed farm (cattle and butchers)

· Arable farm (wheat, sugar beet, potatoes etc)

· Mixed (arable and beef)

· Organic cattle and sheep

· Organic dairy and sheep (plus tourism)

Field advisors from the following organisations:

· Bromley Plus (a private company advising farmers)

· Lantra (concerned with the training and skills needs of farmers)

· Countryside and Woodlands officer from a local county council

· The Arable Group (field advisors who used to be a part of ADAS Sustainable Crops Group)

Scientists from the Universities of Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln, Aberdeen and Aberystwyth.

Their broad research interests are:

· Transgenics

· Genes and evolution

· Genetics

· Animal Biology - particularly animal welfare

· Microbiology of the gut and greenhouse gases

· Animal behaviour and welfare

· Environmental economist

3.2.2. Stage 2: Three half day workshops:

Workshop 1: Public (Bristol with representatives from Cardiff)

Workshop 2: Public (Perth)

Workshop 3: Stakeholders (Nottingham)

3.2.3. Stage 3: One full day workshop

One full day workshop in London bringing together stakeholders and the general public

4. Key Findings - Public

Although at first some participants feel they know very little about science, they soon overcome their initial reservations and realise they are able to discuss the impact of science on society in some depth. Participants in higher socio-economic groups are generally more comfortable with the topic initially, but there is very little difference in the depth and breadth of discussions between each of the groups.

4.1. Trust in science

“There’s no trust in our Government.”

“But it’s not the Government we’re on about though. It’s scientists”

“Well it’s the Government that controls the scientists” C2DE, Perth

Participants generally feel that public trust in science and scientists is fairly low.

· However, they do not feel that anything significant has happened to change their perceptions in the past decade, and even over a much longer time frame; believing that levels of trust have always been at a fairly low base

· They give many examples of incidents in the past which have led them to be sceptical about what scientists say (especially on the issue of safety) such as asbestos, thalidomide, BSE, GM and most recently MMR

“There’s been all these scandals over the years. What about thalidomide and things like that? And then BSE and some politician feeding his children beef burgers, and then of course it wasn’t safe at all. But I don’t feel any different about them because these things keep cropping up over the years” ABC1, Perth

Some believe that their trust has increased slightly because they feel that organisations are being held more accountable for their actions than they have been in the past.

· They feel there are more systems in place to ensure that scientific results are rigorous

· And think that the media plays an important role in policing’ behaviour

“They’re being watched more… there’s lots of regulations they have to adhere to” ABC1, Perth

“If anything is discovered by the media, they immediately tell everybody, people protest and the Government has to see what the situation is” ABC1, Perth

In spite of this, many feel that scientists are secretive about what they do, with the majority of their work being done ‘behind closed doors’. This lack of transparency is believed to exacerbate the situation and intensify feelings of mistrust.

“So many people are up in the air about it because it’s secretive. It shouldn’t be behind closed doors. If they were more open with the public I don’t think there would be so much fear” C2DE, Cardiff

· Many think that the public is rarely consulted or that the public is involved too late in the day, which leads them to believe the scientists are not necessarily acting in the public interest. Some also feel that scientists do not care about or consider public opinion

“It is like they don’t care about public opinion until they have done what they have done and then they come and sort of ask everybody their opinion, or it gets leaked out in some way” C2DE, Cardiff

· Scientists are criticised for not speaking in plain, simple language that lay people can understand

“They need to talk to us in our terminology, not their terminology” C2DE, Cardiff

· However, some do acknowledge that scientists may, in some instances, be unable to share their research. They argue that in such cases the ideas that scientists are working on may have to remain secret for political, legal or financial reasons

“There’s no way scientists would be more transparent about what they’re doing… there’s an official secrets act and they cannot even tell you something that happened 50 years ago” C2DE, Perth

“I think they are afraid to give us the facts, because if we have too much knowledge we might just know something they don’t want us to” C2DE, Bristol

“Research done by companies is kept secret because there’s millions of pounds involved” C2DE, Bristol

They also question whether it is sometimes too dangerous for scientists to keep the public fully informed because it could lead to unnecessary panic or fear

“In all honesty I think that they [scientists] would be a bit against it being so open now because of the panic of people, there are things that are dangerous like, all solvent stuff and chemicals used and things, there have got to be secrets with them” C2DE, Cardiff

Many note a recent change in the amount of seemingly conflicting evidence that they are presented with.

“For every thing that a scientist comes up with, there is another scientist who will say ‘well that’s wrong’” C2DE, Cardiff

· In the past they feel that there was generally one version of the facts, whereas now they are exposed to conflicting viewpoints from a number of scientists and are unsure which party to believe

“I think the problem is manipulating statistics. Because someone will use a set of statistics to prove one thing and then another clever dude down the road will turn around and use the same statistics to disprove it” C2DE, Bristol

“Well the thing is that you get given an opinion and it reverses what you thought was the case… it makes you wonder doesn’t it, makes you wonder what to believe” C2DE, Bristol

· A particular example is MMR. Many find it difficult to know which scientists to trust. Some are aware that it is only one key scientist who believes the vaccine is linked to autism while the majority of scientists say this data is flawed. However, they find it hard to decide whom to trust and many feel the need to err on the side of caution

· Participants believe that the Government is likely to find scientists to support its point of view if doing so is politically expedient (e.g. the MMR vaccine costs significantly less than the three individual vaccines so some believe the Government is finding scientists to advocate the viewpoint that MMR is safe because the NHS cannot afford to provide three separate vaccines)

“There are a few things where Government policy is a bit controversial, but they bring in scientists to back the argument for Government policy. I’m thinking of things like the MMR vaccine. They keep saying it’s safe but you don’t sort of quite trust all the experiments they keep coming up with” ABC1, Perth

“If they’re getting funded by the Government, and backed by the Government, it’s very hard to run against them” ABC1, Perth

· When presented with conflicting versions of the facts, the general consensus of participants is that they assume the worst because that is the path least likely to be harmful in the long run, even if there are implications in the short term

4.1.1. Sources of information

All participants say their main source of information about science and research is the media, predominantly television and newspapers. A minority read more specialist magazines or look at websites

“I don’t think many of us have other sources or other ways of accessing what’s going on in science… if you were interested you could look it up on the internet, but you’d have to be interested” ABC1, Perth

· All feel that their views are consequently shaped by press coverage of issues

“Trouble is that most people get their information through television. You get programmes on and some are for and some are against but they’re both extremes… You need someone you can trust, someone sensible” C2DE, Bristol

· They are aware that scare stories make better reading than good news and consequently many expect that they are given biased information

· In this context they believe that some sources are more trustworthy than others (i.e. scientific journals and television programmes such as Horizon are the most trustworthy, followed by broadsheets and finally tabloids) but that ultimately they are reliant on what they read and are unsure about where to get further information

“If I generally wanted to know about any of these things I was to read it in, lets say the Independent, I would probably trust it. But I wouldn’t trust it in many other papers” C2DE, Bristol

· Additionally, many are not particularly interested in finding out more information

“I think if you asked ninety percent of the public, they don’t care [about science]. They’re not interested. It doesn’t enter their minds” C2DE, Perth

· Many participants are aware that the media is unlikely to present facts from a neutral point of view and therefore recognise that their main sources of information about science are biased by reporters ‘looking for a good story’

“Papers and TV and everything like that, will do anything to get a good story” ABC1, Perth

Ultimately, rather than trust what they read or what they are told by politicians, participants indicate that they tend turn to sources of information that are closer to home. If people have a medical query they will trust their doctor to give them impartial advice on treatment. Equally, on a question of food safety, the public trust supermarkets to label clearly or not stock foods that could potentially be harmful (e.g. Iceland does not stock any products that could contain GM ingredients).

4.1.2. Communicating with the public

Many participants feel that the majority of people have little understanding of or interest in science. Few of the participants enjoyed science at school and only a few studied science post 16 or have showed an interest in science in their adult life

· Many blame the education system for this lack of interest

· They feel schools teach what they describe as ‘old’ science whereas what would engage people and encourage them to maintain an interest in science would be discussion of ‘new’ and ‘interesting’ scientific developments

· The current science curriculum is seen to be dry and to lack relevance to many students

“I think, in a way, old science is still being taught in schools, rather than youngsters being enthused by the possibilities of science as it actually is today” ABC1, Perth

· Consequently, many believe that science is more marginalized than it should be. They, therefore, feel that the curriculum should be changed to ensure that more school age children find science interesting and are consequently more able to be involved in informed debate about research agendas in the future

“We need to keep up with other countries and to do that we need to start at grass roots level. Money needs to be invested in schools, particularly where science is concerned because they are our future” C2DE, Bristol

“I think that science and technology and the way things are changing and the ways we are able and capable of changing the world and so on should be part of something more central to education than just the ‘Three R’s’” ABC1, Perth

Additionally, many believe there is a lack of accessible information for the adult public. They call for more programmes on television presenting new concepts in an understandable way. They also call for more balanced sources of information so that they can make informed judgements, rather than a having to rely on the skewed information they feel they are currently receiving.

“I don’t know why somebody doesn’t get on television and let us have the facts” C2DE, Bristol

“Tomorrow’s World used to be on television and I could just about understand that… Science as a subject in school was very isolated with a chemistry lab and smells of litmus paper and Bunsen burners. You couldn’t relate it to your own experience and that’s why I failed so dismally at the subject” C2DE, Cardiff

4.2. Who is the research for?

When thinking about the value of science and why it is done, people tend to think in terms of ‘who will benefit?’ rather than ‘who is research done for?’

· For example, the motivation for a drug company developing a new drug may be profit-related. However, ultimately it is the user of that drug who benefits. Participants tend to focus on the benefit to the ill person, rather than the profits going to the drug company when they judge the value of the scientific research that has been done

“We want to know whether we personally will reap the benefits” C2DE, Perth

In general, most participants feel that science has an important part to play in society, so that, in a macro sense, science should be encouraged for the good of the country and the good of humanity. When prompted, almost all believe it has a positive impact on the economy and feel it is important for the UK to be involved in scientific research of many types. However, the impact of research on the economy is not a top of mind issue

“We have a big drug manufac

3.2.1. Stage 1

3.2.2. Stage 2: Three half day workshops:

3.2.3. Stage 3: One full day workshop

3.2.4. Analysis and interpretation

4.1.1. Sources of information

4.1.2. Communicating with the public