back
STRATEGIC SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 21 SEPTEMBER 2006 AT MANSION HOUSE, EDINBURGH ZOO, EDINBURGH
Those present were:
Chair: Professor Peter Holmes
Members: Professor Janet Sprent, Professor Chris Pollock, Mr Iain Duncan Millar, Professor Joe Brownlie, Dr Susan Walker, Dr Jeremy Wilson, Dr James Robb
Observers: Dr Alf Game, BBSRC; Dr Andy Stott, Defra; Professor David Gani, SFC
Secretariat: Dr Linda Saunderson, Ms Jean Gilchrist, Mr Douglas Brown
Apologies: Professor Mark Shucksmith, Dr Gerry Lawson, NERC
SEERAD:
Professor Maggie Gill (CSA), Dr Linda Pooley, Dr Nick Ambrose, Dr Helen Jones, Mrs Joanna Drewitt
Welcome
1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the third meeting of the Strategic Science Advisory Panel (SSAP) and, in particular, Dr Helen Jones, Mrs Joanna Drewitt, Dr Alf Game and Dr Andy Stott, who all had kindly agreed to present to SSAP their organisations' current and future research needs in the area of biodiversity.
Minutes of Meeting 23/24 May and Matters Arising
2. One amendment to the minutes was tabled. The minutes were accepted as an accurate record of the meeting.
3. CSR. The CSA updated members on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and confirmed the key time for consideration of the Spending Review would be from May to September 2007. She advised that the negotiations are likely to be very tight but SEERAD would be working towards improving on the existing budget.
4. The CSA also confirmed that science would be one of the key areas identified in the briefing forwarded to the various political parties and in advance of the May elections for the Scottish Parliament, she would be encouraging the MRPs to raise the profile of the importance of science within Government.
5. Science Strategy. The CSA explained that the new Chief Scientific Adviser for Scotland (Professor Anne Glover), who took up post on 1 August, had been tasked with taking forward the development of the Science Strategy and it was hoped it would be issued for consultation by the end of September. The draft science strategy identifies 7 themes under which the strategy will be developed. The CSA suggested the meeting proposed for 24 October to discuss the strategy should be seen as an opportunity for SSAP to influence the development of policies and to assist in moving ERAD issues forward.
6. Remit. The Chair advised that the remit had been amended as agreed at the previous meeting. Horizon scanning and Animal Health &Welfare issues would be discussed at Items 3 and 4 respectively
Item 2 : SEERAD Research Strategy 2005-2010
7. Dr Saunderson gave an update on progress of the Centre of Excellence, Environment and Health Programme, commissioning of the research programmes, and the Programme Assessment Exercise as set out in SSAP 2006/22.
8. Panel members noted that the proposed Programme Assessment Exercise (PAE) would be taking place at the same time as the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and were concerned that this could present logistical difficulties in the recruitment of experts for the PAE review panels. Dr Saunderson acknowledged this difficulty and advised the draft paper on the PAE process would be circulated within the next few weeks to Panel members and to MRPs for comment.
Item 3 : Next Research Strategy
Policy Relevant Research and Cross Cutting Themes
9. Professor Gill spoke to paper SSAP 2006/23 on Policy Relevant Research. She explained that one of the main objectives of the current SEERAD research strategy is to ensure the SEERAD's research programmes become more 'policy relevant'. However she felt that a mutual and realistic understanding of this term is needed to bring clarity to the discussions about the next Research Strategy. This paper was drawn up to explore this issue with the SSAP.
10. During the discussion Panel Members raised a number of issues. Members commented that addressing policy issues did not always require novel research, sometimes new analysis of existing research was needed. The CSA agreed that there may be a need within ERAD to analyse existing data and for systems modellers to work with socio -economists and that indeed SAG were well placed to do this by a mixture of in-house and external research collaborations.
11. Members also discussed the need for a flexible approach to policy related research. There are many influences on policy development other than the scientific issues - public perceptions, political issues and the like all play a part. Researchers need to remain independent and avoid being drawn too closely into the policy process. The science can only be a contributor to policy development, but is not the sole driver of it. Good communication between scientists and policy makers can help to overcome such difficulties.
12. Members also discussed the importance of studies to assess the impact of policies and saw this as an important role for research.
13. Members also agreed that there is a need for research that is not close to policy development (policy "indifferent") but in areas that are likely to become more policy related in future. The CSA added that this was particularly relevant to the SSAP's role in horizon scanning to identify those essential capabilities that will be required to meet future ERAD policy needs. Members thought that some "future proofing" strategy would be required and perhaps some far sighted analysis of possible scenarios would be useful to scope out the types of capabilities that need to be retained through ERAD funding.
14. The CSA suggested that one way would be to determine the national requirements and to identify what are the needs then prioritise certain key areas. In the review of the next strategy there will be a need to question whether the research needs are for Scotland alone or at a UK level and how best these might be co-ordinated and funded.
15. Panel members suggested the long term ERAD policy needs consideration. Which will be the important areas of policy development? Are the current research programmes appropriate? What does ERAD as a whole require from research? The CSA pointed out that the Panel discussions should take account of these issues and needs to be sensitive to the future direction of ERAD policy. Members agreed that one of the main tasks of SSAP is to address the outcomes from the questions posed at paragraph 20 of SSAP paper 2006/23.
16. Panel members highlighted the continuing need for ensuring capacity to deal with emerging diseases and for a specialist infrastructure to deal with these. Members advised against discarding areas of current research strength too quickly. It is very difficult to regain expertise once it is lost. The need for innovative approaches also will remain.
17. Members suggested there was a need to retain competence and expertise within ERAD to evaluate data to assist in determining the future needs for scientific expertise. There was a need to demonstrate within ERAD the value of research in underpinning policy development, and to illustrate this by examples where past research has achieved successful outcomes for current policy. In this respect members felt it would be useful to develop an evidence-base of how SEERAD-funded research has influenced policy in Scotland, the UK and Europe. The Chair suggested that this would contribute to the much broader debate about the relationship between research and policy.
18. Panel members raised the issue of the split between SEERAD's funding for 'science' and 'research'. There is a need to look at SEERAD's scientific activities across its 'family' of organisations and to be clear how each feeds into policy. The CSA agreed the need for improved co-ordination and a clearer alignment of strategies to ensure that needs across the scientific spectrum are met appropriately and cost effectively. Along with the need to ensure effective co-ordination with the Department's agencies there is a clear need to co-ordinate activities with other funders and research providers across Scotland and the UK.
19. Panel members felt it would be useful to do an analysis of the Department's policy priorities (outcomes) against the science needed to deliver these. Dr Saunderson agreed to look at how this might be taken forward. SAG also highlighted that the discussion paper on policy relevance discussed at the meeting would need to be shared with policy colleagues.
Cross Cutting Themes
20. The CSA outlined her intention to discuss the possibility of setting up "one stop shop" centres to meet the needs of policy for scientific input in the areas of climate change and biodiversity. Although these centres would carry out strategic issue driven research in an appropriate and relevant area, they would also be focussed on providing better accessibility to a wide range of expertise and information for policy makers.
21. Panel members suggested that Cross Cutting issues need to be considered more broadly across the Scottish Executive as SEERAD has a contribution to make to the needs of other Departments. They were also aware of the development of pooling initiatives within Scottish HEIs - ACES, SAGES, Marine Science Initiative and felt it would be useful to have an update on these at a future meeting. It will be important to see how the SEERAD funded research aligns with these larger initiatives.
Item 4: Animal Health and Welfare (AH&W) Strategy
22. The Chair spoke to paper SSAP 2006/ 25 summarising the conclusions from the Animal Health and Welfare discussions from the previous meeting. He felt that the issues of flexibility and maintaining capacity with increasing emphasis on relevance and economic impact were important. Members were content that the summary and the conclusions outlined in this paper reflected the Panel's views.
Item 5: Biodiversity Research
23. The Chair welcomed Dr Helen Jones and Mrs Joanna Drewitt, SEERAD, to the meeting. Dr Jones explained that Biodiversity was one of the 3 CCTs outlined in the research strategy which addressed a broad range of issues across the SE. Biodiversity policy is responsive to global and international policies, as well as more local/national policies. It links to a wide range of policy areas such as agriculture, wildlife, water, soils etc and affects a wide range of stakeholders.
24. Dr Jones noted that her presentation (copy of presentation available on the website at www.scotland.gov.uk/srg) focussed on the long-term issues i.e. future programmes and on the key questions outlined in paper SSAP 2006/26.
To what extent can/should ERAD rely on other funders for the evidence needed? Are there particular areas where this is the most efficient way of acquiring that information and understanding?
25. Dr Jones outlined the other funders of biodiversity research which includes NERC, BBSRC and Defra. Other funders in Scotland include SNH, SEPA, DCS; each have particular roles, remits, and responsibilities for biodiversity. She noted that the Environmental Research Funders Forum (ERFF) had been set up at a UK level to co-ordinate the research undertaken by the SE and other funders (paper on ERFF tabled at meeting - Annex E of SSAP 2006/26) and that this mechanism should be very useful in co-ordinating the work of the various funders to achieve greater coverage and efficiency of biodiversity research to meet policy needs.
Should ERAD be funding more strategic research on urban and marine biodiversity issues? Are there synergies and benefits to Scottish biodiversity issues by taking a more holistic/strategic research approach across different ecosystems?
26. Dr Jones explained that SEERAD also liaises with SEPA, SNH, FC and DCS on a regular basis to share information. All are aware of the need to avoid duplication of research between the funders. However there is also a significant need to co-ordinate and identify particularly Scottish issues and interests which may pose specific research questions not addressed by other funders, e.g. habitats which are unique to Scotland.
27. Dr Jones explained that for historical reasons the current programmes of research focus on rural and land-based issues. The programmes do not cover marine biodiversity or urban biodiversity issues which are funded by the Research Councils and others. She explained that currently there are other budgets for research in these areas e.g. Fisheries Research Service, SNIFFER and NERC, but there is a need to ensure that there is appropriate linkage and read across to and from these other programmes. SEERAD have also been looking to the MRPs to ensure that appropriate connections between the rural/land use focus to urban and marine issues is included in their research planning.
Are there areas of biodiversity research absent from the current research programmes that should be developed for inclusion in the programmes from 2010?
28. Dr Jones commented that an important question for the future is to identify any important gaps in the research programmes e.g. taxonomic capacity and expertise. Also new scientific, social or policy developments may open up areas where research could be needed e.g. energy supply issues (the potential impact of land use changes due to growing more renewables and different ways of generation) or changes to Scotland's demographics (ageing and declining population leading for example to greater land abandonment).
29. She explained the difficulty in identifying priorities. The Scottish Biodiversity (SB) research strategy helps to identify the types of science which are needed, and the Scottish Biodiversity List identifies priority species and habitats - c. 2000 in all. The Research Strategy goes some way to focus on priorities, however, it is still a very broad field, and the MRPs need further dialogue with policy/stakeholders to identify how best they can develop their research to achieve a broader relevance.
Are there areas of biodiversity research included in the current research programmes that should be dropped from the next round of programmes starting in 2011?
30. Dr Jones felt there is a need to identify areas of research which may need to change or evolve to meet new challenges. For example in areas where there is a strong background of research into ecological impacts of land management (e.g. upland grazing systems), there may be opportunities to make better use of this expertise in studies to understand impacts on biodiversity.
31. Dr Jones raised the question of whether there will be areas where research is no longer needed either because there is now sufficient information available or the policy cycle has moved on into a phase where less research is required, or has changed in nature
32. She explained that the panel which reviewed Programme 3 recognised that although research into impacts of grazing animals (deer, sheep, mountain hares etc.) on upland vegetation was still important, there was a heavy investment in research in this area, but that some of the expertise and understanding might be more usefully applied in other ecosystems, and that other drivers of change in upland systems (e.g. climate change) will also need to be considered.
Are there research priorities that needed to be picked up and developed now, prior to the next round of programmes?
33. Dr Jones noted the intention that there should be some flexibility in the Programmes. The current Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) is very broad in its remit and scope. Whilst recognising that the SEERAD biodiversity work (predominantly under work packages 3.6 and 3.7) cannot possibly cover all of these she asked Panel members whether the current biodiversity work is sufficiently broad ?
34. Dr Jones advised that the panel which reviewed Programme 3 felt the Work Packages (in particular 3.6 on species, habitats and ecosystems) was perhaps not as broad in its scope as it might be to address the broad range of habitats and species posed by the SBS. There was still the need to question how we achieve the right focus, and the right balance between breadth and depth of research?
35. Dr Jones then outlined some of the biodiversity policy milestones which will operate over the next few years and highlighted that there were also other, broader issues which are likely to effect the achievement of biodiversity policy targets.
General Discussion
36. Panel members felt that global/international biodiversity issues could not be ignored in the Scottish context particularly where there is uncertainty surrounding the effects of global climate change or coastal/marine changes. Economic drivers and responses to environmental or social changes within other countries may also imply the need for UK policies to adapt in different ways. They also felt that the study of non-native invasive species should be a priority.
37. They felt it was important to have a longer term view on what can be achieved and the importance of strengthening research on the protection of biodiversity as a key strategic cross-cutting theme.
38. Panel members questioned whether the mapping exercise currently being undertaken by ERFF would include Scotland. Dr Jones noted that the exercise would include Scotland and would be completed by the end of the year. It will be a useful tool in identifying priorities. It was agreed to send SSAP members a copy of this analysis when available.
39. Panel members also asked how much Scotland relies on EU expertise and whether there were any gaps in Scottish expertise. Dr Stott explained that the UK leads in Europe in this area with the UK having a significant input into collaborative projects within the EU.
40. Panel members felt that research into the ecological requirements of species and habitats of conservation concern remained very important within a Scottish context and asked whether there were additional species and habitats that are important to Biodiversity in Scotland. Members asked whether non - native species were included. SEERAD explained that this was an area where research is undertaken mainly by SNH. Panel members also questioned the role of the Scottish Biodiversity Forum. Joanna Drewitt explained the current UK Biodiversity policy issues, including the work undertaken to identify Biodiversity targets which exist across the UK for priority species and habitats. Biodiversity policy activity does not lie with a single 'group' within the SE as this impacts on a number of policy areas. The Scottish Biodiversity Forum is an umbrella group or partnership for those with an interest in biodiversity. A number of policy Divisions and external partners are involved.
41. Panel members suggested that the research could be categorised in 3 areas
- Fundamental research to achieve biodiversity protection goals through work on the requirements of species and habitats and the structure and function of ecosystems (the UK has strengths in this)
- Improving the monitoring of long-term trends in biodiversity.
- Research which addresses knowledge transfer and influencing those whose activities impact on biodiversity to achieve biodiversity protection goals.
42. Panel members also felt that there was a need within a UK context to find ways of delivering multiple 'public goods' from land use management. The requirements for commodities to be produced along with environmental goods may change with time and current scientific work in understanding how best to deliver both biodiversity and food production may be of critical importance to future policies. It was commented that some current work carried out by English Nature/Defra provides a good example to illustrate the value of research to understanding how to combine biodiversity and food production from agricultural land.
43. Members questioned whether there might be a need for an international panel on biodiversity loss as already exists for climate change, whether there was adequate co-ordination of science with biodiversity objectives within the UK, and how much responsibility lies within Scotland for the policy on biodiversity. Officials explained that Defra takes the lead on international biodiversity policy and there had been a recent refresh of Defra's 'One Planet Living' policy. There had been a progression of policies over the past few years to widen the focus to broader global issues. This was an area that was developing rapidly and Defra officials acknowledged there may not be enough research carried out in this area to identify the areas which are most in need of protection and methods for achieving this.
44. Members felt that sustainability and biodiversity go hand in hand and that research is needed to understand the extent to which biodiversity can be delivered alongside other key 'public goods' measures of sustainability such as water quality, air quality and carbon sequestration, or whether conflicts may occur. Though such questions are global, they also need to be tackled within Scotland. Members agreed however that this was difficult to achieve within the current programmes and that this needs to be considered in future research strategies.
45. The CSA summed up with the view that ERAD are one of many players in what Members recognised as an important, complex and global issue. It is therefore all the more important that SEERAD works together with the other major UK funders to ensure effective and appropriate co-ordination, prioritisation and target setting on biodiversity issues.
BBSRC Presentation
46. Dr Alf Game presented the BBSRC's strategy for Biodiversity research (copy of presentation available on the website at www.scotland.gov.uk/srg). He indicated 3 main areas where funding for research has been focussed. These are:
· Agro-ecological studies (mainly managed systems)
· Genomics/informatics including systematics, taxonomy, evolution, micro-evolution studies
· Climate change and disease where some expertise gaps had been identified.
47. BBSRC identified a need to attract scientists into the areas of mathematics/modelling and systematics and noted the recent difficulties in the recruitment of fungal taxonomists. Despite the shortages of scientists, the UK was still considered a world leader in these areas. BBSRC also have an interest in biodiversity informatics and developing specific tools within the general area of bioinformatics. Molecular taxonomy is another area of increasing interest and suggested the gap in the research agenda is within the area of molecular statistics.
48. Panel members felt the Universities would not be prepared to invest in these areas unless there was sufficient interest from students and felt that this needed to be considered within a global context.
49. Members felt that UK researchers are setting the agenda from genomics to evolutionary biology but there was no evidence of this coming through within the research proposals. BBSRC acknowledged the difficulty in persuading scientists to undertake research in 'real' systems. Globally most players equate biodiversity only with ecological studies, but much wider considerations are needed.
50. The Scottish Funding Council explained there had been a recent investment of £20 million focussing on systems and translational biology. The next phase of potential investment in Life Sciences 'pooling' in Scotland gives a unique opportunity to discuss what areas need to be developed and provides an opportunity to encourage biological sciences to pick up on new and exciting areas.
51. Panel members noted that exciting research taking a cladistics approach is being missed by UK researchers who appear to be wedded to more traditional approaches. However there are some places where progress in this area is being made. BBSRC confirmed cladistics and molecular taxonomic approaches are now embedded within the institutes. Professor Pollock agreed to provide a short paper on this issue to update members.
Defra Presentation
52. Dr Andy Stott, Defra, explained his role in Defra is to provide scientific advice to support policy. He is based within the 'Living, Land and Seas Science Division' within Defra. Dr Stott gave his presentation (available on the website at www.scotland.gov.uk/srg ) and outlined the strategic priorities of Defra in respect of Biodiversity.
53. Panel members were interested to know whether Defra had prioritised the strategic priorities. Defra explained that all of the 6 issues including sustainable development, climate change and energy, sustainable consumption and production, protecting the countryside, sustainable rural communities and sustainable farming and food were all of equal high priority and all would be addressed during the period of their strategy.
54. BBSRC outlined their links with Defra which is particularly strong in animal/ livestock research. Ongoing discussions will address synergies in areas of land and environmental management where BBSRC research will be more likely to align with Defra's move away from production research.
55. Although it was unfortunate that, due to a transport problem, Dr Lawson was not able to present NERC's biodiversity priorities at this meeting, (copy of presentation available on the website at www.scotland.gov.uk/srg) Dr Stott advised there was a strong complementarity between Defra's and NERC's biodiversity strategies.
General Discussion
56. The Chair asked members for additional comments on the questions posed by SEERAD, whether there were any scientific opportunities and gaps, the quality of research, regionality and additional reviews needed.
57. Panel members felt they would find it helpful to be aware of the constraints that were being imposed, ie a list of the activities SEERAD was required to carry out under National/International obligations.
58. Members were also interested to know the number of sites within the Environmental Change Network. Defra explained there is currently a project looking at ECN to detect climate change with currently 12 sites operating although this needed to expand to around 40-60 sites to be certain of the impacts of climate change. Defra acknowledged the importance of the work in this area but finding resources to fund expansion was difficult.
59. Panel members acknowledged the important issue of balance between monitoring and evaluation and the difficult balance in allocating funding from the research budget for monitoring. Given the benefits from monitoring, Panel members questioned whether better sampling methods and contribution from new technologies could be a means of reducing expenditure in this area. Defra acknowledged this was an area they were currently trying to expand. Members noted that if monitoring is undertaken by volunteers, the ISO status is withdrawn which has financial implications
60. Members questioned the constraint imposed on SEERAD funding for undertaking legislative requirements. SEERAD explained that the constraint is not on the research budget but on the actions to be taken arising from any legislative requirement. SEERAD also explained that there are separate budgets for monitoring and research and acknowledged the need for a greater commitment for monitoring although this would not impact on the funding for research.
61. Members felt that greater funding for monitoring to confirm compliance with legal requirements needs to be given consideration. Defra advised that the JNCC is currently looking at requests for surveillance and are trying to identify areas which could be cut back and are also considering the legal obligations.
62. Members asked whether the Panel needs to consider high risk areas. Some high risk areas are monitored eg Agri - Environment Schemes but this monitoring tends to be ad hoc. Members also highlighted the growing enthusiasm for ecosystem level research and questioned to what extent this growing enthusiasm risks leaving behind more routine studies designed to understand the ecological requirements and conservation needs of species and habitats of immediate conservation concern, as represented by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and Scottish Biodiversity Lists.
63. Members voiced concern that Knowledge Transfer had not been identified as one of the issues SEERAD biodiversity policy colleagues are actively considering at the moment. They felt that the best person to deliver the benefit of the biodiversity research was the person on the ground and that dialogue with such people is essential.
64. The Chair thanked everyone for their most helpful and interesting papers and acknowledged the broad range of issues covered in the discussion. This included the issue of capacity, the mapping of expertise, the number of organisations involved, the gaps, joining up and prioritisation, importance of the balance between monitoring and evaluation, new technologies, natural priorities in a global context and knowledge transfer.
Item 6 - Defra SAC
65. Dr Saunderson spoke to paper SSAP 2006/30, the background to the Defra Science Advisory Council (SAC). She explained that SAC is an NDPB whereas SSAP is a task force so operate in a different manner. The Chair and the CSA had attended the SAC open meeting in July and it was suggested that SSAP hold a similar Open Meeting, possibly at the September 2007 meeting and invite representatives from the MRPs, HEIs and other interested stakeholder groups to discuss the findings of this Panel within an open forum.
66. Members were supportive of an open meeting which could be very useful provided there was a clear agenda to focus the discussion. They felt it was essential to hold the meeting in a venue with good acoustics and, because of its inclusive layout, the senate chamber at Glasgow University was suggested as one option.
AOB
67. The next meeting will be held on 24 October to discuss the science strategy. Secretariat will issue details as soon as the science strategy issues for consultation. The next full meeting of the Panel will be held on 15/16 January 2007.
Actions: Secretariat to
- Circulate draft paper on PAE to all members
- Determine availability of figures to carry out an analysis of Department's policy priorities against the science needed to deliver these
- Provide update on pooling initiatives at future meeting
- Provide copy of ERFF mapping exercise to members when it becomes available
Professor Pollock to
- Provide paper on Cladistics approach
SSAP Secretariat
October 2006
Updated January 2007
back