back
STRATEGIC SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 10 JANUARY 2006 AT EDINBURGH AIRPORT HILTON HOTEL, EDINBURGH
Those present were:
Chair: Professor Peter Holmes
Members: Professor Janet Sprent, Professor Chris Pollock, Mr Ian Duncan Millar, Professor Joe Brownlie, Professor Mark Shucksmith, Dr Susan Walker, Dr Jeremy Wilson, Dr James Robb
Observers: Dr Faith Culshaw, NERC; Professor Nigel Brown, BBSRC; Dr Steven Hill, Defra; Professor David Gani, SFC
SEERAD: Professor Maggie Gill (CSA designate), Mr Bob Irvine, Dr Nick Ambrose, Mr Norman Harvey.
Secretariat: Dr Linda Saunderson, Ms Jean Gilchrist, Ms Liz Wood
Apologies: none
Welcome
1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Strategic Science Advisory Panel (SSAP) and outlined the context of the day's meeting, including the work the Panel will undertake for SEERAD. The Chair drew members' attention to the considerable Ministerial support that had been given to the work of this Panel (see press release announcing SSAP Launch) noting that he had had a useful discussion with the Deputy Minister for Rural Development and that she was keen to attend a future meeting of the Panel to meet the members.
Members Introduction
2. Members, observers and SEERAD officials each gave a brief overview of their background and interests.
CSA Introduction
3. The newly appointed SEERAD Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), Professor Maggie Gill gave a brief introduction to this new post within the Department (which she will take up on 1 February 2006). Professor Gill welcomed the opportunity of working with the Panel. Although her post has a Department-wide remit, advice from the SSAP on research needs and priorities are very important to the CSA's responsibilities for science within SEERAD. The interaction between the CSA and SSAP to fulfil its remit to advise the Department on research matters was discussed. A main function for the Panel will be to ensure progress on the targets set out in the Strategic Science for SEERAD document. The horizon scanning role of SSAP is also very important. Effective means of communication with all stakeholders including other research funders and Government Departments is essential to ensure the role of that of the CSA fits with research priorities at UK level.
Secretariat introduction
4. Dr Saunderson introduced the secretariat and discussed its role. The primary function of the Secretariat will be to support the SSAP and its members in arranging meetings, gathering information and recording the proceedings. The secretariat will act as impartial reporters to ensure that Panel meetings are properly documented.
Introduction - scene setting
5. Mr Irvine started by thanking the members for accepting the invitation to joint this panel. He re-emphasised Professor Gill's comments on the importance of this Panel to the encouraging the greater use of science and research evidence to support the Department's policy agenda. He also re-iterated the Chair's comments on Ministerial enthusiasm for science in support of Departmental policy.
6. He noted that the Department's Research Strategy published in 2005 marked a significant change of approach in how the Department commissions research and how the Main Research Providers (MRPs) funded by SEERAD (SABRIs, SAC and RBGE [1]) meet the Department's needs for research. One of the three main objectives of this Strategy is to ensure the research funded is relevant to SEERAD's policy and regulatory responsibilities. There will be significantly less funding for basic research and an increasing emphasis on strategic research. The need for a greater degree of relevance and communication of research outcomes into practice was an important issue raised by respondents during the consultation on the research strategy.
7. The way that the Department will commission research through a Programme approach marks a major change in how the MRPs will be funded. These organisations will no longer be sponsored by the Department through grant-in-aid but will be funded through grants for research specified in Programmes. The Department recognises that these changes will require to be implemented carefully to avoid threatening the sustainability of the MRPs and a number of important aspects such as funding for facilities are under discussion currently.
8. With these major changes in approach, the Department also recognises the importance of access to independent and strategic advice on its research priorities and announced the intention to set up this Panel in the Research Strategy. The need for the SSAP to be aware of the wider policy developments within the Department is likely to be an early challenge for the members. It was suggested it might be helpful for SSAP to have discussions with the main policy leads within SEERAD in future meetings. It was also noted that a number of strategies, including agriculture, sustainable and rural development, and marine conservation are currently being developed within SEERAD. Of these, the first two are of particular relevance to the SSAP.
9. The Panel questioned how SRG links with marine science. The various budgets within SEERAD for research were discussed. SRG has the largest budget, with separate smaller budgets for both marine and for environment research. There is close liaison between SRG and both Fisheries and the Environment Groups. The responsibilities for SSAP currently relate to the SRG budget although where there are issues that are also relevant to marine and environmental science, the CSA and SRG would welcome the Panel's advice.
10. The Panel also asked about the position of Office of Science and Technology (OST) with respect to SEERAD's responsibilities for science. Although there is no direct responsibility per se to OST, the guidelines issued by OST relate across Government, including the Scottish Executive and officials confirmed that these would be followed. The setting up of the SSAP and the appointment of a CSA for SEERAD show how SEERAD are responding to these guidelines.
Remit of SSAP/Chair's remarks
11. The Chair emphasised the role of SSAP is to:
- provide high level independent and strategic advice to SEERAD with an emphasis on quality of advice
- provide guidance on end-user engagement
- horizon scanning
12. Emphasis was also placed on the key role SSAP would play in collaboration, effective liaison and how to assist the MRPs in their closer integration and to maximise their attributes to the benefit of Scotland. Other issues where SSAP, advice will be sought include:
- assessment of the research programmes
- allocation of resources between programmes
The SSAP will set out the work it will undertake in a work plan and will report on its activities annually.
13. The Chair suggested that the style of the meetings should be open, frank and strategic. He reminded Panel members that they had been invited to participate as individuals and not as representatives of any particular body or sector. The Panel will act as advisers to SEERAD and Ministers and assist the Department in the strategic direction of research following the policy agenda. The Panel would support SRG in providing an evidence base to their research programmes and advice on the research activities SRG should be supporting.
14. Officials confirmed the Panel has been set up as an advisory Task Force and members have been appointed for a period of 2 years. Panel members voiced some concern that the period of appointment was insufficient to enable delivery of its full remit. Officials confirmed that work continuing beyond this timeframe could be carried forward by a further Task Force Group.
Induction Pack
15. The secretariat commented on the Induction Pack drawn up for member's information. The desirability of openness of the proceedings of the Panel was emphasised. The intention is to make all SSAP papers available on the SRG website. On occasion there may be a need to restrict the circulation of some papers which contain sensitive information. However mostly these will be draft/working papers which would become openly available once finalised.
16. The secretariat noted the list of members' interests and requested that members should advise the secretariat of any change to their affiliations.
17. The Chair suggested that the Panel might consider holding some meetings in public. Members felt that this was desirable. However the view was expressed that there would need to be careful thought about the focus and coverage of such an 'open' meeting to ensure a useful and effective interaction with a wider audience. The Chair confirmed that the minutes of all SSAP meetings would also be published.
Research Strategy
18. Dr Saunderson and Dr Ambrose gave an overview of the SEERAD research strategy including an outline of the review process, the strategy objectives, the progress against the set targets and future plans. Click here to see a copy of the presentation.
19. The Review Process had involved a lengthy consultation including a number of meetings with stakeholders. The feedback from the consultation indicated that a radical approach to the research strategy was needed. After consideration of this feedback a further consultation was undertaken prior to publication of the research strategy 'Strategic Research for SEERAD: 2005-2010'.
20. Dr Saunderson discussed the details of the 3 main objectives set out in the Research Strategy (see Annex 1).
21. The Panel asked about the process for assessment of the programmes of research in 2008-2009. Members commented on the importance of assessing international quality, but were concerned that this was difficult where the research was more strategic and applied in nature. Assessment of the relevance of research is also a challenge for funders. Members suggested that the move away from 'basic' science in the SEERAD research programmes implied that the assessment system would need to be designed to measure outputs of the research not only for their quality but also for their relevance and usefulness. It was noted that the previous system for assessment of MRPs (the Research Organisation Assessment Exercise, ROAE) carried out in 2002-2003 had focussed to a considerable extent on these aspects. However the systems will need to be further developed for assessment of Research Programmes. The process to be used in 2008/2009 is being developed and the secretariat agreed to provide a paper on this for the next meeting of the Panel.
22. Panel members asked about the impact on the MRPs of the Research Strategy objective of moving to greater competition for SEERAD funds. It was confirmed that the funds would be opened up to research organisations beyond the MRPs. Members asked about how such a change would impact on the viability of the MRPs in the longer term. It was noted that the balance between competition and capacity/critical mass to address the Department's research needs would be an important aspect of the deliberations of the Panel with respect to horizon scanning activities. It was also noted that a number of consultancy studies on the implications of the changes outlined in the Strategy on the MRPs have been carried out and the information from these studies would be helpful in setting up sustainable structures.
23. Members asked about the level of basic research within the SEERAD Programmes and why this had been set so low. Officials commented that the requirement for research to be relevant to Departmental needs precluded programmes containing large amounts of basic research which by definition has no specific outcome in mind. However the Department will consider funding basic research if it is necessary to underpin relevant research and is not being funded by others.
24. Officials discussed Objective 2 and the emphasis within the strategy document on Knowledge Transfer, separate funding streams for KT, end-user engagement and raising the profile of SRG funded research. The Panel discussed the definition of end users, the difficulties of assessing the impact of KT activities, the role of education within the MRPs and the difficulties of recruitment of scientists into the profession. The challenge for the next stage of the strategy implementation would be to develop SEERAD's approach to Knowledge Transfer (KT) and end-user engagement. The Panel's advice on these issues will be welcomed.
25. Officials outlined the thinking behind Objective 3 and the structural changes required to build critical mass within the MRPs and the changes to the funding of MRPs from grant-in-aid to rolling grants for programmes of research. Programme funding has been set up initially for a 5 year period, with a major assessment and review being undertaken after 3 years.
26. Members asked about mechanisms to ensure that the research programmes stay relevant to policy needs over the 5 years. Officials pointed out that 'Programme Groups' will be set up to advise on and co-ordinate research within programmes. These Groups will be encouraged to ensure that any emerging policy requirements are taken into account in planning and executing the research within the Programmes. Groups will be expected to communicate effectively with major stakeholder interests either by including representatives on the Group or through other engagement mechanisms. These Groups will report on progress of the programmes of research to SRG on an annual basis, and SSAP will be invited to oversee and comment on these reports. It was also noted that SRG's contract research fund (the Flexible Fund) is the mechanism of choice for funding projects to support short term research needs in support of policy as it is not usually appropriate to undertake such research within programmes.
27. Members asked about how the capital infrastructure of the MRPs would be supported in future. Officials pointed out that such requirements would be funded separately from programmes. Members were concerned that specialist facilities available at MRPs should not be lost through becoming too dependent on short term funding. Officials reassured members that consideration of ensuring the maintenance of facilities to ensure that research needs could be met was a high priority. SEERAD will be asking the SSAP to assist in a review of essential resources and facilities to meet its research needs as part of its remit over the next 2 years.
Progress Against Targets
28. Dr Saunderson introduced the draft Annual report by giving a brief summary of the targets set out in the 'Strategic Research for SEERAD: 2005-2010' and the progress made in the first year of the research strategy by the Science and Research Group in achieving these targets. The presentation on this is also included in Annex 1.
29. Members were interested to know the level of support for joint funding. SEERAD and observers noted that they recognise the need to co-ordinate their efforts and, where relevant, to fund work jointly to gain efficiency and value for money. SEERAD has set aside funds for this purpose from the Flexible Fund (contract research funds).
30. Members asked about the eligibility of the MRPs to access Research Council and other funds. It was noted that although there are restrictions on availability of funding for the SABRIs from the Research Councils, there is some movement towards opening up of research funds to a wider range of research organisations. However the SABRIs are free to bid for funding from Defra and other Government Departments but not from the Scottish Funding Council (SFC).
31. Dr Ambrose gave an outline of the background and progress with the Centres of Excellence Awards which were described in the Research Strategy. SEERAD expects to announce successful bidders for this funding in the spring of 2006. There was some concern expressed by the Panel that the funding available for this initiative was rather small and the impact on the Scottish science base would not be significant.
32. Dr Ambrose also gave a brief outline of the preliminary work on the proposal to fund a programme of work on Environment and Health. The desirability of commissioning work in this area was identified during the research strategy review consultation as an area which is of increasing priority for SEERAD. The intention is to be able to fund work on this topic from April 2007. The Panel questioned whether the Health Department (HD) supports this area of research. Officials confirmed the HD are closely involved in the discussions and are very supportive but currently do not have funding for this type of research.
33. Members noted that NERC are currently planning an initiative in a similar area and it was suggested SEERAD should contribute to this programme. SRG noted that the NERC initiative was of interest but differed in focus from the programme suggested by SEERAD and HD policy interests, although if appropriate proposals were submitted to the NERC initiative, SEERAD might consider the co-funding of these. During the discussion it was suggested by NERC and Defra that SEERAD may wish to consider financial commitment to the NERC programme, in the interest of joined-up working in this area.
Horizon Scanning
34. Dr Saunderson gave a brief outline of the need for SEERAD to consider future research to inform the Department's evidence base in support of policy needs. In particular there is a need to examine what research resources and facilities need to have longer term funding and conducted through a mission driven approach within an 'institute' setting. At present the research programmes contain a mix of strategic and applied research as well as including support for resources such as germplasm collections and information databases which are of wider relevance and importance. SEERAD would like the SSAP to help with the process of determining which resources and facilities need to be retained in the longer term and to advise on how these might be funded sustainably.
35. SEERAD recognises the importance of co-ordinating efforts in this consideration with funders of similar research in the UK. To start this process of review, it was considered helpful for the representatives of the other major UK funders to discuss how each of them takes forward Horizon scanning activity and what they currently see as the major priorities for research in their areas. Observers to the Panel were invited to give short presentations on these aspects. Annexes 2 to 5 contain the presentations from BBSRC, NERC, Defra and SFC.
36. Members asked about the level of contact between the BBSRC and NERC Institutes and the MRPs given that there is significant complementarity in the research they conduct. A number of examples of where there are active collaborations or joint use of facilities were discussed. Funders work together to identify opportunities to build on existing collaborations. There are mechanisms to ensure effective dialogue between funders at all levels. Representation of BBSRC, NERC, Defra and SFC on SSAP is one example of this. Members were reassured that if there is a need to invite representation from other funders (e.g. ESRC) to SSAP meetings this would not be a problem.
37. Defra confirmed a policy team had been set up to consider horizon scanning. The panel suggested Defra should be invited to make a further presentation to the Panel at a future meeting. Defra agreed to supply copies of their strategy for circulation to all Panel members. BBSRC and NERC will also provide copies of Strategy documents for SSAP members.
38. The Panel questioned the level of social science included within the research programmes and what measures were in place to develop this field of science. It was acknowledged that collaboration in social science was difficult. There was also a lack of scientists working in this field.
Work Plan
39. A Work Plan for the Panel to take forward over the next 2 years needs to be drawn up. As a number of concerns, issues and tasks had been identified at this meeting, the secretariat suggested that a draft plan could be drawn up from this and circulated to members for their consideration before the next meeting. The Chair and members agreed that this would be helpful. The Panel were concerned that the timing of their deliberations would not be in synchrony with the need to inform the next Government Spending Review (SR) in 2007, and suggested that an item on this should also be included at the next meeting.
40. The Chair suggested that the Deputy Minister (Ms Brankin) and Directors/CEOs of the MRPs should be invited to attend the next meeting. Given the emphasis in the research strategy on of the need for policy relevance, he suggested it might be helpful to consider how the Panel might also have input from SEERAD policy groups. The secretariat will consider the format of the next meeting to ensure maximum use of the time available for the discussions and presentations members have requested.
41. The Chair thanked everyone for attending the meeting and for all the helpful contributions to the very useful discussions. He confirmed the next meeting of SSAP will be held on Tuesday 23 May 2006 and Wednesday 24 May 2006 and looked forward to meeting everyone again then.
SSAP Secretariat
January 2006
Actions:
Secretariat to
- invite Deputy Minister for Rural Development to meet with members at a future meeting of the SSAP
- invite Directors/CEOs of MRPs to make presentations to the next meeting of SSAP
- consider how relevant policy input could be made to future SSAP meetings
- prepare draft 'work plan' for members to consider prior to the next meeting of SSAP
- consider format for the next meeting
Defra, NERC and BBSRC to
- provide copies of strategy documents for SSAP members
[1] Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research Institutes (SABRIs: the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute; the Moredun Research Institute; the Rowett Research Institute; the Scottish Crops Research Institute); Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (RBGE).
back