STRATEGIC SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
MINUTES OF SEVENTH MEETING HELD ON 12 DECEMBER 2007AT CARLTON HOTEL, NORTHBRIDGE ,EDINBURGH
Those present were:
Chair: Professor Peter Holmes
Members: Professor Janet Sprent, Mr Iain Duncan Millar, Dr Jeremy Wilson, Professor Mark Shucksmith, Professor Joe Brownlie, Dr James Robb, Professor Bill Gurney, Ms Maggie McGinlay, Dr Susan Walker
Observers: Dr Huw Tyson (BBSRC), Zitouni Ould-Dada (Defra)
Secretariat: Dr Linda Saunderson, Ms Jean Gilchrist, Mr Douglas Brown
Apologies: Professor Chris Pollock, Professor David Gani (SFC), Ms Hazel Jeffrey (NERC)
Scottish Government: Prof. Maggie Gill (CSA), Dr Nick Ambrose, Dr Liam Kelly
Welcome
1. The Chair, Peter Holmes, welcomed everyone to the seventh and final meeting of the Strategic Science Advisory Panel (SSAP) and introduced Zitouni Ould-Dada who was representing Defra.
Item 1: Minutes of Meeting 24 & 25 September and Matters Arising (SSAP 2007/63)
2. A minor amendment to para 41 minutes was suggested by members. The minutes would be finalised and published on the website.
Action Points arising from the sixth meeting
3. The Chair advised that all points arising from the previous meeting had been actioned.
Matters Arising
4. Rural Development Conclusions. This was to be discussed at Agenda Item 2.
5. OECD Working Group Report. Secretariat reported that Policy colleagues had advised the OECD draft report was currently being amended to take on board comments arising from the consultation held in August and suggested it would be more appropriate to await the publication of the final report prior to circulating to members. Secretariat agreed to confirm with policy colleagues whether the report is widely available.
Rural Development Conclusions (SSAP 2007/64)
6. Members discussed the draft paper on rural development at some length. The Chair noted that the discussion on rural development at the 5th meeting addressed mainly innovation issues and Smart Successful Scotland and had not covered research needs in this area. It was agreed to include an introductory paragraph to the draft paper to set the findings in context.
7. In response to queries from the members, Professor Gill advised that social research is included within many of the Work Packages forming part of the RERAD funded research programmes and confirmed that professional advice on social science and economics is available in-house within the Scottish Government.
RERAD Research Strategy Update (SSAP 2007/65)
Programme Annual Reports
8. Dr Saunderson clarified that the templates for future annual reports by the Main Research Providers (MRPs) would be simplified in light of the feedback from the independent reviewers. The next annual report from the MRPs will cover the first 2 years of the research programmes and will form the major part of the information to be provided to the Panel members for the Mid Programme Review.
Mid Programme Review (SSAP 2007/60).
9. Dr Saunderson confirmed the Mid Programme Review (previously referred to as the Programme Assessment Exercise) for the four programmes of research will be carried out during October - December 2008 and will be an assessment of the delivery of the research as set out within the Work Package Specifications. She also confirmed that because of the potential for conflicts of interests, members of the Programme Groups would not be invited to sit on the review panels.
Spending Review
10. Professor Gill advised members of the outcome of the latest comprehensive spending review. She explained this had been a very tight spending review with a 2% efficiency savings required across the board within the Scottish Government. The draft proposed budget would be subject to scrutiny prior to being approved by Parliament in February.
11. Professor Gill explained there would be continued flat funding for the MRPs until 2011 with some additional funding allocated for individual research projects such as the Behaviours centre and for projects under the cross-UK government LWEC (Living with Environmental Change) programme.
12. In relation to capital funding, the spending review had been extremely tight: not all requests for capital funding from the MRPs could be met, but capital funding for projects such as the RBGE Gateway Visitor/Communication Facility had been approved.
13. BBSRC advised their budget had increased as part of the spending review, and that all the Research Councils had recently published their delivery plans. Defra's research and development budget had decreased considerably and they advised they would be seeking alternative means of funding for research in the future such as the EU Framework 7 programme of research.
Item 3 : SSAP High Level Conclusions (SSAP 2007/66)
14. Members were generally content with the format of the draft paper on high level conclusions paper. Members considered the content of this paper at some length and a number of revisions were discussed and amendments suggested. The Chair requested members to forward their suggestions for revised wording for these to the Secretariat no later than Friday 21 December.
SSAP Final Report (SSAP 2007/67)
15. Members suggested various amendments to the proposed format and layout of the draft report such as: the High Level Conclusions to form the basis of the Executive summary; more information to be included on other issues discussed as part of the SSAP meetings eg MRPs discussions etc.
16. Secretariat agreed to revise the draft report to take on board the members suggested changes and to circulate a further draft for consideration and comment.
Item 4: Towards the Next Research Strategy - Scoping review Engagement Process
17. Dr Saunderson advised that the SNIFFER report would be finalised shortly. The initial analysis of the report had identified links between the policy challenges/ drivers and receptors of change and that these and the knowledge gaps within the topic areas had generally fitted well with the draft Themes - apart from : political/social/governmental issues: generic science issues and new technology. The report had identified a need for a clearer definition of sustainability and the draft themes in general and also a need for systems approaches and inter-disciplinary working.
18. Members discussed the current titles of the 4 themes (Local Responses to Global Change; Sustainable Communities; Sustainable Environments; Support for nationally important rural, environmental and marine capability and resource). They questioned the use of 'local' (meaning 'Scottish') in the 1st theme and whether this should include 'technology'. Members suggested 'multifunctional (or multiple) use and stewardship of..' might better describe the 3rd theme. Dr Saunderson confirmed that the issues of disease and diet and health fall into the sustainable environments theme.
19. Dr Saunderson advised that the analysis of the scoping review outcomes would form the basis of the framework for the next consultation stage. Professor Gill felt that the members' high level conclusions were extremely useful and mapped directly onto the 4 themes which set the context for the policy of RERAD funded research.
20. The next stage of the strategy review process would involve a consultation on the first 3 suggested themes. Professor Gill confirmed that there had been widespread support for the 4th theme of national capability and there would be no need to consult on this at this stage.
Forward Plans
21. Professor Gill thanked the members of the SSAP for all their help and assistance over the past 2 years, and added that she had found the wide ranging discussions particularly helpful in formulating the thinking for the next research strategy. She explained that RERAD still required this type of high level strategic advice on research and proposed to set up 'transient think tanks' to provide a continuing source of advice to RERAD on more specific areas as this was the most important need in the short term. The need for high level strategic advice would be reconsidered again in future.
22. Professor Gill also discussed the further initiatives to 'strengthen the pipeline from research to policy'. She explained that representatives from policy and the delivery partners (SNH, SEPA etc) would help steer the development of the next research strategy in the next phase of its development. She noted that the current administration were very supportive of the high quality underpinning science which fed through and supported the policy thinking.
AOB
23. The Chair reminded members that this was the final meeting of the Advisory Panel and he thanked the members and observers from the other research funders for their valued contribution to the work of the Panel over the past 2 years. Their expertise and knowledge had been invaluable and the outcomes from their wide ranging discussions will be of great assistance to RERAD in the formulation of the next research strategy.
24. The Chair also thanked the Secretariat for their hard work and effort in their outstanding support of the Panel over the past 2 years.
ACTIONS
Members to:
- Provide Secretariat with revisions to conclusions paper on High Level Conclusions by Friday 21 December
Actions: Secretariat to
- Revise High Level Conclusions paper
- Confirm if OECD Working Group papers available.
- Revise SSAP final report and circulate to members for further comment
- Circulate link to Biomass paper
SSAP Secretariat
Revised January 2008