Response to the AEBC Consultation on Research Agendas in Agricultural Biotechnology

Submitted on behalf of IFR by
Dr Nicholas Walton

December 2004

For further information please contact Dr Nicholas Walton
[nicholas.walton@ifr.ac.uk]

The consultation period has now closed. Background information on the consultation can be found at: www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/subgroups/research_agendas_consultation.shtml

1. Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? Please give details. What role does scientific research play in the business of your organisation and/or what is your relationship to scientific research?

This Response is submitted on behalf of the Institute of Food Research (IFR), which is an independent research organisation with charitable status, sponsored by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). IFR’s remit is to undertake long-term and strategic scientific research related to food, in the interests of consumers, regulators and industry. IFR has a broad research portfolio, organised under three Themes: Food Safety Science, Food Materials Science, and Diet and Health. This includes significant activity relating to (plant) agricultural biotechnology, principally in the following areas: research on plants and plant foods with beneficial or enhanced nutritional or food-materials properties; research into mechanisms influencing the safety of novel foods, including in particular research on the potential for “unintended effects” in GM foods; and new uses for plant-derived materials, including waste materials. Agricultural biotechnology in relation to animals falls outside the remit of IFR.

Drivers behind agricultural biotechnology research and the balance between them

2. Do you think the AEBC’s initial analysis accurately describes the key drivers behind agricultural biotechnology research in the UK and how these have evolved over time? Are there any omissions or gaps in the study?

The analysis appears to be comprehensive and well-balanced and to refer to all the principal factors.

What do you think has been the relative importance placed on the following drivers that we have identified? (Please give reasons for your answers as appropriate.):

• advancing fundamental knowledge and scientific curiosity; maintaining/developing the UK science base;
• wealth creation and building the “knowledge economy”;
• international competitiveness;
• private sector product and process development in the ‘near market’ research
• government policy, regulation and legislation;
• EU and international policy, regulation and legislation;
• public attitudes and aspirations;
• social need and the public good

The relative importance of these drivers has changed substantially, against a background of radical changes in the funding and accountability mechanisms that govern public-sector science. Although the Rothschild Principle was established in 1971, the full implications of the customer-contractor relationship - in particular, the establishment of competitive funding mechanisms (for example, the ending of MAFF commissioned research) and of formal project reporting against detailed, pre-set objectives - did not become apparent until the 1990s. Some significant developments in the “research market” came later; for example, researchers at BBSRC-sponsored Institutes were not eligible to apply for responsive-mode BBSRC funding until 2001.

Regulatory and public-interest policy drivers were not prominent in agricultural biotechnology research until the 1990s; “public attitudes and aspirations” and “social need and the public good” were assumed to be in line with advancing fundamental knowledge, wealth creation and international competitiveness. After the 1980s, this linkage came increasingly under scrutiny, partly on account of the impact of a succession of agri-food safety scares (Salmonella in eggs; BSE; foot and mouth) and public concerns from the late 1990s over the safety of GM crops and foods. The need to be able to demonstrate the safety, authenticity and traceability of foods led to an expansion of UK and EC policy-driven work in support of these requirements. It also substantially stimulated social science research investigating attitudes to agri-food technologies and to risk.

Following the publication in 1993 of the White Paper, “Realising Our Potential”, increased emphasis was placed upon wealth creation and upon industry involvement in basic and strategic research. For example, the ROPA research-grant scheme introduced following publication of the White Paper was restricted to researchers who had secured a significant level of research funding from UK industry. More recent policy has re-emphasised science quality (with increasing prominence of mechanisms for selection and scrutiny), together with the enhancement of technology-transfer mechanisms.

4. The AEBC’s information gathering suggests an increasing emphasis on research to support government policy and the knowledge economy. Are you aware of any significant trends/changes over time in the drivers behind agricultural biotechnology? What impact have these had?

There are serious questions about the future profitability and sustainability of the UK agricultural industry in a global market, and following reform of the CAP. Higher-value and value-added production, diversification and payment for environmental management are significant trends in the agricultural economy. Climate change and global resource issues introduce substantial uncertainty in the medium and long term. Against this background, research opportunities and priorities in agricultural biotechnology need to be continually re-examined. This in itself creates a research requirement for knowledge gathering and predictive modelling.

Debate and economic uncertainty over the future of GM technology (in particular) has influenced the direction of agricultural biotechnology research, driving both the re-orientation of programmes and the initiation of new work (for example, FSA-funded work to investigate the basis of “unintended effects” in GM crops and of technologies to detect them). One effect has been a degree of shift of publicly-funded research towards both policy-driven science on the one hand and generic, fundamental science on the other (these are not incompatible) and away from end-product-specific and market-led biotechnology research.

Recognition of the importance of diet in the maintenance of long-term health is now a major factor influencing agricultural and food biotechnology research, both policy-driven and fundamental. For example, around half of IFR’s research, whether funded from BBSRC through the Competitive Strategic Grant, from BBSRC through responsive-mode grants, from FSA or from the EC, relates directly or indirectly to the interaction of diet with health. (Such work includes agricultural biotechnology objectives, e.g. the development by conventional breeding at John Innes Centre and IFR of broccoli with elevated levels of glucosinolates.)

5. Do you feel that the right balance is achieved between the drivers that you believe to be most significant? If not, please elaborate.

Probably yes, but see 6) below. A very important further requirement (in addition to sufficient funding) is effective coordination between the relevant funding agencies (particularly Defra, FSA and BBSRC).

6. Our analysis suggests that there is still a significant “bottom-up” influence on research agendas, but that directed programmes and central Government control and scrutiny of research are increasing. In your opinion is the current balance between responsive mode (bottom-up) and strategically directed (top-down) research about right? If not, what should be changed?

The balance between responsive-mode and strategically-directed research is one facet of a wider issue. In any case, responsive-mode research is strategically directed to the extent that applications for responsive-mode funding generally need to fall within the remits of the funding body’s committees and boards. These remits, as part of the funding body’s strategy, are subject to Government approval even if they may derive from “bottom-up” thinking. More important is i) how much latitude is available within overall strategic direction and ii) whether the research is managed with a “light touch” or is intensively scrutinised.

There is little objective evidence on the level and frequency of formal scrutiny of research that is necessary to stimulate and maintain quality and output or to prevent drift, though high-profile incidents have highlighted the need for robust, process-quality control procedures. However, scrutiny can be introduced more easily than it can be removed. Excessive or gratuitous scrutiny distracts researchers from their central objective, which is to initiate and carry out research.

It is very difficult, even under the responsive-mode procedure, for researchers to gain funding for speculative work involving a degree of risk. Increasingly, preliminary demonstration of concept is needed in order to be successful with a responsive-mode application. We believe there is a strong case for earmarking a research fund to support higher risk blue skies research (not of course restricted to agricultural biotechnology), possibly along the lines of the EPSRC “sandpit” scheme.

Mechanisms for setting agricultural biotechnology research agendas, and how well they work

7. Do you think appropriate mechanisms exist for determining research agendas and the balance that has to be struck between drivers when deciding what research is done? Please refer to what type of research and which funding agencies you are referring to in your answer. How well do you think these mechanisms work in practice?

As pointed out in AEBC’s initial analysis, these mechanisms are not wholly identifiable and necessarily include an informal component. We see no problem with this, provided that there is clear accountability and objective justification for the agendas that are arrived at. It is important that all stakeholders (including research organisations) and the wider public have appropriate opportunities for genuine input into the agenda-setting process. This can in principle be achieved by workshops; stakeholder meetings; horizon-scanning exercises; web-based or targeted consultations; and public meetings (but see 9) below). It is important to distinguish consultation from information provision.

FSA has adopted a particularly proactive policy of openness to the public, including convening open Board Meetings. Other funding agencies with a less high-profile, public-interest mission presently provide fewer opportunities for public access.

Events such as grant-holder and subject-interest workshops run by research councils to discuss emerging areas of science and technology can provide good opportunities for individual researchers to provide informal input into research committee priorities. It is important that research council agendas should be particularly responsive to “bottom-up” input in this way.

8. Is horizon-scanning an important and useful tool for establishing research agendas? How significant has the government's Foresight exercise been?

Horizon-scanning of some kind is self-evidently necessary; the real question is how it should be done and who should be invited to contribute. We are in favour of web-based consultations open to the public (for example the 2002 Defra horizon-scanning consultation), together with targeted approaches to individual organisations. We support horizon-scanning in the Defra mode, where no restrictions were placed (or implied) on the research ideas that could be submitted.

The most conspicuous contribution made by the Foresight scheme to agricultural biotechnology has been the work of the Food Chain and Crops for Industry (FCCI) Panel, summarised in its 2002 Report. The observations and recommendations were wide-ranging (and not biotechnology-focused) and covered some of the same ground as the Report of the Commission on Farming and Food (the Curry Report). It is difficult for us to judge to what extent the Panel’s recommendations have specifically influenced agricultural biotechnology research. We note that none of the presently-established Foresight Projects addresses biotechnology or agriculture (with the possible exception of Flood and Coastal Defence).

9. Who should be involved in establishing policy and priorities in scientific research? Should the public and/or society more widely have a role in these decisions? If so, at what stage, through what mechanisms, and to what extent should they be involved? If not, why not?

Public science is funded from taxpayers’ money and the public have a right to be involved in science policy-making. We would, however, caution against blind acceptance of a public involvement “mantra”; there is a danger that public involvement becomes regarded by policy-makers as an end in itself, rather than as part of the means to an end. Unfortunately, there is little objective evidence that public engagement - of whatever kind - produces clear benefits to policy makers. Promoting public involvement without producing evidence of effectiveness and (it may appear) without significant prospect of influencing the outcome of decision-making risks engendering a climate of cynicism and mistrust (as demonstrated in the recent “GM Nation?” public consultation). Research at IFR and elsewhere is investigating the appropriateness and effectiveness of different modes of public consultation^1,2 and additional evidence is urgently needed. Some consultation mechanisms may present obvious problems – for example, of the balance of lay and expert opinion (and personalities) on committees, or of the submission of mass but unrepresentative expressions of opinion in response to web-based consultations.

Implications for research and development

10. Are you aware of any significant gaps in the UK research agenda that have been caused by an imbalance of research drivers? For example, do you believe an emphasis on wealth creation has led to significant gaps in public good research? Has the withdrawal of Government from near-market agricultural research created gaps?

Concerns about food safety, diet and health and new technologies (especially GM) have stimulated the public-good research agenda, though this is certainly not incompatible with research in support of wealth creation. Furthermore, research that in the longer term contributes to the health of the nation is, in a real sense, “wealth-creating”, even if the benefits are unquantifiable.

In our experience, SMEs particularly can find it difficult (expensive, bureaucratic and time-consuming) to become involved in collaborative research projects. We are in favour of mechanisms that make LINK and EC programmes more attractive to SME participation.

We are not in a position to comment in detail on the effects of recent changes, for example those relating to the former Horticulture Research International and Silsoe Research Institute. However, the market-related research requirements of UK agriculture and horticulture should be actively reviewed and new opportunities sought and identified, with the participation of industry and the research and funding organisations concerned (including particularly Defra and the Levy Boards).

11. Do you feel that the relationship between the public and private sector has changed, and what are the implications of this in terms of the industry influence on public sector research agendas?

Public sector research organisations, and individual researchers, now operate in a research market which, although distinct from a commercial market, introduces comparable demands and a parallel ethos. There is a much greater recognition (compared to 15 years ago) of the role of the managed protection and exploitation of intellectual property and of technology transfer to industry. Organisations now manage their relationships with industry in a more concerted and effective way; an example of this is the Food and Health Network, established by IFR to bring together industrialists and IFR researchers to address generic problems of interest to the food industry. However, the overall extent of industry influence on public sector research agendas has in our view not altered markedly in the past 10 years.

12. In your view, is the UK sufficiently supportive of research and innovation in general, and more specifically in the field of agricultural biotechnology? Do you have any views on how research funds are deployed within the field of agricultural biotechnology?

More could be done to support speculative research (see above) and to provide interim technology-development funding (possibly through regional development agencies). Funding for agricultural biotechnology needs to take account of a “whole process” perspective, from field to factory and final product and, ultimately, disposal or recycling. Full account also needs to be taken of changes in economic conditions; a new crop or process that is uneconomic now may no longer be uneconomic in 10 years’ time. All the relevant funding agencies need to be involved in establishing and reviewing the agricultural biotechnology research agenda(s).

13. What are the implications of the various drivers and mechanisms behind research agendas on the openness and transparency of public sector research?

These are addressed in the responses to 7), 8) and 9) above.

14. Are there any issues around the setting of research agendas that the AEBC may have missed? If so, please elaborate.

No further comment.

¹Campbell, S. and Townsend, E. (2003) Flaws undermine results of UK biotech debate. Nature 425, 559.
²Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2004) Evaluating public participation exercise: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values 29, 512.