Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) Research Agendas workstream:

Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are invested each year in agricultural research in the UK, much of this using modern biological techniques - that is, biotechnology in its broad sense. Since it was established in 2000, the Biotechnology Commission has become aware of a number of concerns expressed by stakeholders about research spend in this area. Often, people have told us that the underlying problem behind the genetic modification (GM) controversies that we have addressed in our past work is that the wrong research is being done in agriculture. The GM controversy raised scientific issues that had not been previously been addressed, calling into question why these areas had not been covered by earlier research agendas^[1]. Issues that have been raised with us include a sense that the balance of public research has shifted and is now too focused on underpinning commercial applications; that creativity and innovation are stifled by a preoccupation with risk and regulation; that there is insufficient transfer to market of applied research; that intellectual property rules restrict openness and transparency; and that public funding into areas of possible benefit to society is neglected due to low commercial significance. But are these concerns well founded? What shapes the research agenda in agricultural biotechnology?[2]

To answer these questions, we have taken a systematic look at the drivers behind research, and the mechanisms in place for setting priorities, and have tried to identify the implications of what we have found for the research that is done.

This is an issue that goes much wider than agricultural biotechnology, and there is high-level interest in research agendas. The Government’s ten-year investment framework for science and innovation considers the overall science agenda and its relationship with the economy, policy and society[3]. Starting with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s report on Science and Society in 2000, a number of groups have called for science to be more open and accountable to the public[4].

How, then, does the AEBC add value to the debate? With our broad membership, including natural and social scientists, people from the biotechnology industry, environmental campaigners and lawyers, our consensus report incorporates and has the backing of a wide range of perspectives. Our thorough approach, which has included information gathering, detailed case studies, written consultation and public and stakeholder engagement modules (see below) means that our conclusions and recommendations are solidly backed by a large and varied body of evidence. We have attempted to address and incorporate views from everyone we have talked to throughout the exercise, from farming organisations to Research Council chief executives and from members of the public to agricultural scientists.

Our focus, as befits our remit, is on agricultural biotechnology research[5], though we have often strayed towards agricultural research more generally, and even science as a whole. We make no apologies for this, because the relationship between agricultural biotechnology and agri-food research in general is interesting and a rigid adherence to biotechnology would have been both practically difficult and artificially constraining. Furthermore, while our conclusions and recommendations apply specifically to agricultural biotechnology, most of them have wider relevance. In some respects, our work has implications for research agenda-setting in general. In responding to this report Government may want to consider how its recommendations apply to the science base as a whole, incorporating input from the Office of Science and Technology as well as the agriculture and environment departments to whom our previous reports have primarily been addressed.

From the beginning, we decided to concentrate our attention on publicly funded research. This is because we feel that it is more appropriate, and in line with our remit, to pay attention to the public sector. As advisers to Government, the funder of public research, it is here that our advice is likely to have most impact. In addition, gathering information on private sector research activities in agricultural biotechnology poses practical difficulties. However, we recognise that a significant part of agricultural biotechnology research, the majority globally, is in the private sector and, more importantly, that private companies have a strong influence on and links with public funders. We have devoted much attention to the relationship between the public and private sector, and we feel that our findings are also relevant to private companies.

Agricultural biotechnology research is an international activity and international influences on research agendas cannot be ignored. Overseas research in biotechnology has an effect on and is affected by UK research. Some UK research is targeted specifically at the needs of developing countries. In addition, the major policy influences on agriculture, and therefore agricultural research, are international, including the Common Agricultural Policy and its reform, and liberalisation of world trade. We have constrained our scope to UK research for similar reasons to our concentration on the public sector. But we acknowledge that, as UK researchers look increasingly to European Union programmes and other opportunities for international cooperation, especially for expensive, large-scale work, this constraint is becoming more and more significant.

2.2. How it was done – the modular approach

We have taken a modular approach, with five separate strands to this work, conducted largely simultaneously, contributing to the overall findings set out in this report (see Annex 1):

1. Information gathering and analysis

2. Written consultation exercise

3. Public and stakeholder engagement exercise

4. Plant breeding case study

5. Soil science case study

All five of these modules have contributed to this final report, and often they have reinforced each other. Most of our conclusions and recommendations are supported by the findings of more than one of the modules. Throughout the report that follows, we have referred to relevant data from the modules, which we feel lend weight to our views.

The output of each module, and its main findings, are summarised below. However, in order to benefit from the comprehensive analysis that has contributed to our findings, we recommend visiting the full papers themselves, which are available on line and hard copy[6].

2.2.1. Information gathering and analysis

Our first step in examining research agendas was to gather a large volume of information covering[7]:

· a historical overview of UK research policy in general and agricultural biotechnology research policy specifically;

· the key over-arching influences on research agendas; and

· detailed descriptions of organisations funding agricultural biotechnology research in the UK, breaking down their expenditure and describing how they set research agendas, the aims and specific drivers that influence them and how stakeholders and the public are engaged in their operations.

We gathered this information from three main sources: desk research by the AEBC secretariat; academic literature provided by AEBC members and experts in science policy; and the evidence of guests invited to AEBC meetings during 2004 and 2005[8]. The information was and analysed in a paper that also made some broad observations and drew preliminary conclusions from the data. This analysis paper suggested that the drivers behind research agendas in agricultural biotechnology could be grouped in four main categories:

1. Advancing knowledge and technology and maintaining the science base

2. Wealth creation and international competitiveness

3. Government policy, regulation and legislation

4. Public priorities and aspirations for science

However, it was clear that formal drivers and mechanisms were not the whole picture and cultural and historical factors, which are difficult to describe or measure, were important.

The balance between the drivers varied for different funders and different scientific areas. Advancing knowledge was a more significant driver for Research Councils and Universities, while supporting policy is a higher priority for Government departments. However, general trends could be detected. The importance of research to support policy appeared to be growing. The pursuit of knowledge and scientific excellence continued to be important, but the reasons for this were increasingly linked to wealth creation. Despite the focus on wealth creation, there was no sign of a move towards more near-market, experimental development type research - in fact, there might be said to be a gap in the provision of near-market research.

Examination of the mechanisms of research agenda setting suggested that policy drivers influenced research agendas through policy representation on Research Council decision-making bodies and other, less formal, interactions between scientists and policy makers. The drive for wealth creation and competitiveness came mainly through high-level Government initiatives, including financial incentives for individual scientists, and through private sector collaboration and representation on high-level committees and advisory groups

We found that all Research Councils and Government Departments used a process of consultation and a structure involving advisory groups with “end-user” membership in developing research strategies. However, there were few mechanisms to allow the views of the lay public to influence research agendas directly. The majority of public ‘engagement’ activities seemed to focus on information dissemination and education.

Academic scientists dominated the highest-level advisory committees, influencing the research agenda in this way and also by “bottom-up” prioritisation through responsive-mode funding. While scientists retained considerable autonomy over research agendas, there was growing central scrutiny of the strategic direction of research agendas. With some exceptions, decision-making processes were not fully open, transparent or accountable.

2.2.2. Written consultation exercise

In October 2004, the AEBC launched a written consultation on research agendas, writing to over 150 organisations and individuals and making the consultation documents available to all on the Commission’s website^[9]. The consultation invited comments on 14 specific questions as well as general views, and the draft analysis paper (see 2.2.1 above) was enclosed to stimulate comment.

A total of 30 responses were received, with a fairly even distribution from a variety of categories including Government, non-departmental public bodies, research providers, Research Councils, the agriculture industry, other non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and a number of individuals. Unfortunately, no responses were received from agricultural biotechnology companies or large agri-businesses, or their representative organisations, although a number of these were invited to respond. We were extremely gratified by the high quality of responses, which contained a diverse range of stimulating comments and thought-provoking suggestions to help us in developing our conclusions and recommendations. The responses are available on the AEBC’s website[10].

Overall, respondents welcomed the AEBC’s interest in research agendas in agricultural biotechnology, considering it an area worthy of examination.

Several gaps were highlighted in the Commission’s preliminary analysis, including research to benefit agriculture in developing countries, University research funding and the Research Assessment exercise, and charity and levy body-funded research. A number of respondents raised concerns about the overall nature of agricultural biotechnology research, feeling that fundamental change was needed to make sustainable farming the aim. Some felt that this required a shift in focus from product development to agricultural methods and processes, or to a more systems-based, holistic approach.

Most respondents agreed broadly with the drivers we identified in our analysis. Several respondents expressed concerns that the focus on advancing fundamental knowledge and scientific curiosity meant that agendas were insufficiently targeted to practical applications. Others felt that the wealth creation driver was too strong, and several, mainly NGOs and individuals, viewed the increasing links between the public and private sectors with suspicion. However, some farming industry respondents commented on the need for more market focus and said that more private sector cooperation was needed. All respondents acknowledged the increasing emphasis on research to support Government policy and regulation and while some research providers and NGOs welcomed this, other NGOs, and several individuals, felt that policy needs were too far removed from the fundamental objectives of public good and sustainability.

On mechanisms for setting agendas, Defra and BBSRC cited recent improvements. Several respondents agreed that there was a tendency for increased stakeholder involvement, but there was a general agreement that more openness and transparency were needed in priority setting. Most respondents, across all categories, wanted more public engagement in decision-making and several suggested ways in which this could be made more genuine and meaningful. Some responses, particularly from research funders and providers, commented on the practical difficulties and avoiding disproportionate influence from self-selecting groups was a concern for many.

2.2.3. Public and stakeholder engagement exercise

We wanted to involve the public and certain stakeholders who are not normally consulted in our study, to understand what they think about science, to seek their views on whether the public could be involved in setting research agendas and to get feedback on our own thinking on the issues. To do this, we contracted Opinion Leader Research to conduct a public and stakeholder engagement exercise. The approach was based on two parallel and interacting strands, one with the public and the other with stakeholders of three different kinds - scientists, field advisers and farmers – selected to try to involve people who did not normally become involved in policy issues. Whilst neither group could be claimed to be ‘representative’, they were recruited to give breath in terms of age, social class and geographical location. The results therefore represent an in depth snapshot of these people’s views and how they are arrived at.

The public strand comprised three stages. An initial, three-hour discussion group, where peoples’ general views on science were studied, was followed by a second half-day workshop where participants were given more information on current systems of agenda setting to discuss and debate. These two stages were similar for stakeholders, except that the three different stakeholder groups met separately in the first stage and were brought together in the second. At the final, full day workshop, public participants were brought together with stakeholder participants and several AEBC members to reflect in more depth on some of the key issues and consider the AEBC’s emerging conclusions.

There were several underlying themes which recurred through out the process. Participants were positive about science, and its contribution to society. The public became convinced of the importance of basic or “blue skies” research through what they learned in the engagement process. Doubts expressed about science often related to particular applications, including controversial areas like GM foods and embryo research, but participants also showed a more general concern that all stakeholders had a vested interest, with nobody acting wholly in the public interest. This mistrust resulted in sceptical reactions to some of the key drivers identified by the AEBC, particularly wealth creation and support for Government policy and legislation. It is also related to participants’ wish to see a wide range and balance of different interests on committees and for more transparency and accountability in decision making.

After lengthy deliberation, almost all participants believed that the public had an important contribution to make to research agenda setting, primarily at the strategic level. Public participants thought that they could bring ‘common sense’ to the debate and counterbalance vested interests. However, they were also concerned about their lack of scientific knowledge, and the lack of a trusted source of scientific information, seeing media coverage as either sensationalist or inaccessible.

Stakeholders shared most of the above perspectives but differed from the public participants’ views in some important areas. For example, scientists often felt that funders imposed heavy constraints on them and worried about science being directed by political expediency. They were more ambivalent about public engagement than other participants, seeing the complexity of science as a real barrier. Farmers felt that they did not have much of a say in the science that was conducted and therefore felt detached from it. They were generally open to public engagement. Field advisers tended to hold views which fell between those of the scientists and the farmers, probably reflecting their roles as intermediaries between the two.

From the discussions that took place, we have gained much greater insight on the views of all participants in ways which are directly relevant to the conclusions and recommendations that follow. Overall, participants (both public and stakeholders) were positive about the process and the experience and pleased that their views were being sought. The main problems experienced were the limited time available in relation to the complexity of the issues being discussed, and a difficulty in recruiting stakeholders, particularly farmers and field advisors, with no previous involvement in policy issues. The full reports of each stage, which describe the process in much greater depth, are available on the AEBC website.