STRATEGIC SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
ANNUAL REPORT 2006
1. This document is the first Annual Report of the Strategic Science Advisory Panel (SSAP) and gives an update on the Panel's proceedings and deliberations during the course of 2006.
Background
2. SEERAD's strategy for research on agricultural, biological and environmental science Strategic Research for SEERAD: 2005-2010 was published in January 2005. It established a Strategic Advisory Panel to "advise on matters of research strategy and policy" and to provide independent advice to SEERAD on the implementation and development of its research strategy.
3. The remit of the Panel is 'To act as a source of independent advice to SEERAD on the research it funds and the underlying scientific issues'. Its Terms of Reference are as follows:
- To provide advice to the SEERAD on its policies and strategies for the research it funds within the context of the SEERAD research strategy
- To provide advice on the implementation of the 'Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005-2010'
- To provide advice on the strategic development of the research programme including horizon scanning and foresight
4. Appointments to the Panel, made in accordance with the procedures of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland, were confirmed in November 2005. Appointments are for a period of 2 years and commenced on 1 January 2006 and will end on 31 December 2007.
5. The Panel acts as an advisory Task Force and comprises 9 independent members (including the Chairperson) drawn from end-users, the research community and other funders. Panel members are Professor Peter Holmes (Chair), University of Glasgow, Professor Janet Sprent, University of Dundee, Professor Chris Pollock, Institute of Grassland and Environment Research (IGER), Mr Ian Duncan Millar, independent farmer, Professor Joe Brownlie, Royal Veterinary College London, Professor Mark Shucksmith, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Dr Susan Walker, independent consultant, Dr Jeremy Wilson, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Dr James Robb, independent farmer. Observers include Dr Steven Wilson, NERC, Professor Nigel Brown, BBSRC, Dr Steven Hill, Defra, and Professor David Gani, Scottish Funding Council.
2006 Meetings
6. During the course of 2006 the Panel held 4 meetings with the first meeting in January and a further 2 meetings held in May and September. Papers from the 4 meetings held in 2006 are available on the website at the following address:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Research/15597/23164. The following provides a brief outline of the Panel's deliberations at these meetings.
FIRST MEETING : 10 JANUARY 2006
7. The first meeting of the Panel was held on 10 January at the Hilton Airport Hotel, Edinburgh. At this meeting members discussed and agreed the Panel's Terms of Reference and their remit. The Panel also discussed the need for a Work Plan to take forward over their period of office during 2006-2007.
8. At this meeting Officials provided an overview of the SEERAD research strategy including an outline of the review process, the strategy objectives, progress against the set targets and future plans. A brief outline of the need for SEERAD to consider future research to inform the Department's evidence base in support of policy needs was also given.
9. SEERAD's Aims and Priorities and co-ordination with other funders was also discussed at this meeting. Defra, BBSRC, NERC and SFC observers provided an overview and research priorities of each of their organisations.
Summary
- Agreed Terms of Reference
- Agreed Remit
- Agreed need for a Work Plan
- Discussed SEERAD research strategy including Centre of Excellence, Environment and Health, Commissioning of programmes of research and research assessment
- Discussed Horizon Scanning
- Discussed SEERAD's aims and priorities
- Discussed BBSRC, NERC, Defra and SFC's research priorities
SECOND MEETING : 23 &24 MAY 2006
10. The second meeting of the Panel was held over 2 days at the Radisson SAS Hotel, Edinburgh. At this meeting SEERAD officials provided an update on progress with the commissioning of the research programmes, the setting up of the Programme Groups and the Programme Assessment Exercise. Officials also gave an update on progress with the Centres of Excellence and Environment and Health initiatives.
11. The Panel heard evidence from SEERAD officials on the Animal Health and Welfare (AH&W) Strategy for Scotland and its delivery in Scotland, the background to the Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group and the group's list of priorities and targets. SEERAD officials also gave evidence on the policy and relevance aspects of the SEERAD funded Animal Health and Welfare research programmes and raised a number of issues that were relevant to SSAP's consideration of the future needs of the science base in support of the AH&W policies.
12. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development attended for part of the meeting to meet with Panel members. She stressed the importance both Ministers place on scientific knowledge and understanding in the development of the Department's policies for Environment and Rural Development.
13. Directors of the Main Research Providers also attended for part of the meeting and gave an overview of the focus of the research future plans for each of their research organisations.
Summary
- Noted the SEERAD update on Centres of Excellence, Environment and Health Initiative and Research Commissioning
- Agreed the SSAP Remit and Work Plan
- Discussed Animal Health and Welfare issues and considered SEERAD's future needs of the science base in support of the Animal Health & Welfare policies.
- Heard presentations on the focus of research, future plans etc of each of the Main Research Providers
THIRD MEETING : 21 SEPTEMBER 2006
14. The Third Meeting of the Panel was held on 21 September 2006 at Edinburgh Zoo. At this meeting Panel members discussed and noted the outcomes and conclusions arising from the Animal Health and Welfare discussion at the May meeting.
15. Officials provided an update on the SEERAD research strategy, including Centre of Excellence and Environment and Health. They also provided an overview of policy relevant research and Cross Cutting Themes.
16. The Panel heard evidence from SEERAD officials on the Department's current policy and research activity on Biodiversity Research and how well research is meeting policy needs. The Panel also heard evidence on BBSRC's role and Defra's current and future research strategies and priorities in the area of Biodiversity. Unfortunately, due to transport problems, NERC was unable to present their paper on Biodiversity priorities at this meeting but a copy of the paper has been made available on the website at: www.scotland.gov.uk/srg
17. Panel members also discussed the Defra Science Advisory Council Open Meeting and considered a possible format for the proposed SSAP Open Meeting
Summary
- Discussed Cross Cutting Themes
- Discussed Policy Relevant Research
- Noted and agreed outcomes and Conclusions from Animal Health &Welfare discussion (included at Annex 1)
- Heard evidence and discussed current policy on Biodiversity Research and considered future research needs in support of Biodiversity
- Heard evidence on BBSRC and Defra's role and current and future research strategies and priorities (Conclusions from Biodiversity discussion included at Annex 2)
- Discussed format of Open Meeting
SCIENCE STRATEGY MEETING : 24 OCTOBER 2006
18. This meeting was arranged to allow the Panel to discuss and feed into the consultation document on the 'Science and Innovation Strategy for Scotland'.
19. This was a very constructive meeting at which members discussed and commented on the strategic and high level issues contained in the draft science strategy. Members also discussed the specific Themes and the various questions set out in the consultation document. Written comments had been received from some Panel members in advance of the meeting and these were also considered and discussed during the meeting.
20. Based on the discussion and the written comments received, a draft response to the Science Strategy consultation was prepared. A formal response from the Panel was submitted to the Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser on 5 January 2007.
Summary
- Discussed the 'Science and Innnovation Strategy for Scotland' consultation document
- Discussed comments from Panel members received in advance of the meeting
- Prepared and agreed a response to the Science Strategy consultation
- Submitted a formal response from the Strategic Science Advisory Panel to the Science Strategy consultation document to the Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser on 7 January 2007
EMERGING HIGH LEVEL ISSUES
Throughout its deliberations during 2006 the Panel have identified various high level strategic/generic issues which will be considered further during discussions in 2007. These included:
- The need to identify facilities, resources and expertise required on a long term basis to underpin ongoing policy requirements and how these should be maintained
- The need to recognise the means for support of areas of excellence within the SEERAD funded research programmes
- The need to ensure we identify and publicise where research has made a significant impact on policy, including EU policies
- The need to encourage greater and better coordination across Government funders
- The need to recognise and accept risks associated with making clear decisions about the direction of future research programmes
- The importance of continuing to pursue policy driven research but recognise the value of horizon scanning to identify longer term issues that may require more fundamental research.
- The need to appreciate the interaction between research and monitoring and in doing so recognise the value of long term monitoring and the importance of developing new monitoring technology and techniques.
Plans for 2007
21. The Panel members agreed a Work Plan at the second meeting of the panel in May 2006. Topics to be discussed at the four meetings planned in 2007 are as follows:
January Research needs: Sustainable Agriculture
May Research needs: Climate Change
September Open Meeting to discuss preliminary SSAP conclusions
December Discussion and finalisation of the SSAP Report
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE RESEARCH PRIORITIES : SSAP DISCUSSION 23& 24 MAY 2006
Conclusions and further discussion
22. The SSAP recognises the importance of research on Livestock Health and Welfare issues to rural development in Scotland in particular in maintaining the 'clean and pure' image of Scotland's environment and livestock production sector.
23. The SSAP members were pleased to note that current disease research targets had been drawn up following wide consultation. However given the potential speed at which new diseases can emerge, SEERAD and the MRPs are recommended to ensure that there are effective systems to keep these under regular review.
24. The SSAP agrees that in order to maintain flexibility to meet evolving demands, the underpinning disciplines of immunology, microbiology and pathology should be supported. It is important to recognise however that much of the critical mass in these disciplines resides within the University sector. SEERAD should continue to encourage MRP scientists to build links to such groups to ensure that new ideas and discoveries are incorporated into the relevant research programmes, while recognising that the Institutes need to maintain expertise in the key disciplines, some of which will be funded through the SEERAD programmes.
25. The SSAP recognises that there are considerable strengths in animal health and welfare research in Scotland. Parasitology and genetics/genomics research are particular areas which feature in the SEERAD programmes and are relevant to the needs of the SEERAD policy interests as well as to UK and international stakeholders. The panel members are of the view that future SEERAD programmes should continue to encourage retention of these skills in Scotland.
26. The SSAP members were pleased to note the research being undertaken on breeding goals as a means of improving disease resistance in livestock but acknowledged the need to continue funding research on vaccines and genetics to combat disease threats.
27. The Panel also acknowledges that the majority of financial support for this research currently comes from Government sources. The Panel would encourage SEERAD to ensure that scientists put effort into ensuring that commercial, industry, charity and other funders are encouraged to contribute also to this important area of research. This would not only increases the funding available but also significantly encourage the process of knowledge exchange.
28. The SSAP agreed that it would be timely to carry out some research on effective ways to maximise the effectiveness of knowledge exchange mechanisms in the area of Animal Health and Welfare.
BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH: SSAP DISCUSSION 21 SEPTEMBER 2006
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER DISCUSSION:
The Bigger Picture
29. International trends and issues can have impacts upon Scotland's biodiversity, and the Panel felt that these should not be underestimated or overlooked. International trade and economics, and environmental or social changes in other countries will have consequences for biodiversity within Scotland. This was particularly true where there was uncertainty associated with, for example, climate change, coastal and marine change, emerging diseases and the invasion of non-native species.
30. Scotland (and the UK) needs to find ways of managing land and natural resources to sustainably deliver multiple 'public goods' including biodiversity, food and other goods and services such as water and soil quality and carbon sequestration and storage. The panel felt that research should recognise and address the need for a more holistic and where necessary global approach which can study a number of agendas together (e.g. protection of biodiversity in the context of food production, and wider environmental, social and economic sustainability).
Prioritisation
31. The Panel felt that the biodiversity research in the Programmes was going in the right direction. However, they had concerns that research priorities should be more clearly set, and that in doing so there should be more co-ordination between stakeholders, and a robust, evidence-based approach ("due diligence") used to identify those priorities. The Panel suggested that SEERAD draw up a list of the national and international obligations which it was required to meet or deliver, so that any associated research needs can be prioritised. It also requested that a "map of expenditure" be drawn up across biodiversity research.
Co-ordination
32. SEERAD is one of many funders of biodiversity research within the UK. The panel felt that it is therefore important that SEERAD works together with other major UK funders to ensure effective co-ordination and prioritisation. The Panel suggested that the environmental research mapping exercise being undertaken by the Environmental Research Funders' Forum would prove useful in setting SEERAD's biodiversity research within a UK context, and for identifying gaps or overlaps with other funders.
Monitoring & Science
33. The panel recognised the close relationship between research, evaluation and monitoring, and the need to strike the right balance in allocating funding between these. The panel felt that new technologies or monitoring methodologies should be explored as a means of achieving more with available funding. The use of indicators for monitoring was also highlighted.
34. The Panel acknowledged that there was increasing interest in the "ecosystem approach" which takes a more integrated, holistic view of environmental (including biodiversity), social and economic sustainability objectives. Nevertheless, there needed to be an appropriate balance between science to develop the ecosystem approach, and more focussed studies of the biodiversity resource (at genetic, species and habitat/ecosystem levels) and its conservation.
Research Capacity
35. The panel acknowledged the importance of strengthening research on protection of biodiversity as a key cross-cutting theme, and felt it was important to take a long term view of what can be achieved.
36. The Panel noted BBSRC's concerns on various aspects of the field of taxonomy (classification of living organisms). These included the need to train students, increase the utility and relevance of taxonomy by linking it with other disciplines (e.g. ecology and evolutionary biology), and development of scientific innovations offered by molecular taxonomy (including cladistics). The panel felt that this needed to be considered within a global context.
Knowledge Transfer
37. The panel were concerned that Knowledge Transfer of biodiversity research was not being actively developed, and might be hindering the desired outcomes or impacts. The panel felt that there should be more commitment to delivering the benefits of research through improved management practices. Land managers had a key role to play in translating the benefits of biodiversity research into action on the ground, and should be integral to any KT activity.
Constraints
10. The panel discussed the constraints i.e. the extent to which biodiversity research activities were mandatory (driven by Government obligations) and what capacity or "wriggle room" remained.
11. The minutes of the third SSAP meeting held on 21 September 2006 (SSAP paper 2006/31) give a fuller account of the Panel's discussion on Biodiversity. A copy of the minutes are available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/srg
SSAP Secretariat
Finalised April 2007