Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Professor John Beddington, Government's Chief Scientific Advisor
(SFS 31a)
1. In paragraph 16 of your written evidence,
you refer to the average internal rate of return in R&D projects
evaluated in developing countries. Do you have comparable figures
for the UK?
The widely quoted figure for the average internal
rate of return of research in developing countries of 43% is drawn
originally from A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural
R&D, by Alston et al, a copy of which is attached.[16]
The distributions of rates of return are assessed with reference
to factors such as the commodity researched, the geographical
region the research is carried out in, and the type of institution
funding the research.
The 43% figure is the median rate of return to agricultural
research in developing countries. There is no comparable figure
given for the UK specifically, however the same source estimates
a median rate of return to agricultural research conducted in
developed countries of 46%. The mean of the rate of return estimates
for developed countries is higher than that for developing countries
(98% versus 60% per year). The authors conclude that the rate
of return to research may be higher when the research is conducted
in more developed countries.
As the authors note, these figures should be treated
with caution due to the inherent uncertainties with characterising
the benefits of research, and the high degree of noise relative
to the signal in the meta-analysis. The rates of return are affected
by a number of factors, which can be grouped broadly into four
categories: the way the rate of return is measured, the type of
research being evaluated, the characteristics of the analysts
performing the evaluation and the way the evaluation is conducted.
2. Is the Pesticides Directive the first EU
directive to use hazard rather than risk-based criteria?
Issues of hazard and risk are relevant to a
wide range of legislative areas in the EU, and a variety of approaches
to risk assessment are used across these. A comprehensive examination
of these areas would clearly be a major undertaking. In responding
to the Committee I have therefore focused on those areas most
relevant in the context in which the issue was raised during my
session with the Committee. There are two examples in particular
I would highlight:
— The safe use of chemicals is dealt with
under the REACH (Registration Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction
of Chemical substances) legislation, EC Regulation 1907/2006,
which includes both hazard and risk provisions, but overall is
considered to take a risk-based approach.
— The Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC) includes
provisions which are clearly hazard-based. The Directive includes
a list of around 1,300 substances that are not permitted at any
concentration. The list is constructed based on the hazard posed
by the substances i.e. those substances that are classified as
category 1 or 2 carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins (CMR
1 & 2) are included on the list.
However, a risk-assessment approach is used
to set limits for allowable levels of other substances such as
preservatives and colourants, which are not CMR 1 or 2.
Thus hazard criteria have been used in at least
one previous EU Directive, the Cosmetics Directive.
3. In paragraph 33 of your written evidence,
you refer to a total spend by the BBSRC of £185 million in
2007-08. Please could you supply a more detailed breakdown of
this figure?
BBSRC has provided the detailed breakdown below
of its food and agriculture spend by research area (Section A)
and Institute (Section B), as well as information on the relevance
of BBSRC funded research to UK agriculture (Section C).
A. FUNDING BY
RESEARCH AREAS
BBSRC estimated spend in 2007-08 on research
relating to agriculture and food was £184.6 million. Table
1 shows the breakdown of this into research areas. Of the total,
£66.4 million was on research predominantly relating to plants,
£48.8 million on research predominantly relating to animals
(livestock and fish), and £30.3 million related to food manufacturing,
food safety and (human) diet and health. A substantial proportion
of this research (44%) is defined as strategic and applied research.
Table 1
BBSRC RESEARCH SPEND RELATING TO AGRICULTURE
AND FOOD—BY SCIENCE AREA (ALL INSTITUTIONS, 2007-08)
|
| Research area1 | Estimated research
spend2 (£M)
2007-08
| % Basic3
(Spend)
| % Strategic and
Applied3
(Spend)
|
|
| Plant and crop science | 66.4
| 60% | 40%
|
| Animal health and welfare | 47.7
| 40% | 60%
|
| Diet and health | 14.1
| 56% | 44%
|
| Food safety | 10.9
| 49% | 51%
|
| Agricultural systems | 7.2
| 54% | 46%
|
Effects of environmental change on
agricultural systems
| 6.6 | 45%
| 55% |
| Soil science | 6.3
| 48% | 52%
|
| Food manufacturing | 5.3
| 27% | 73%
|
| Aquaculture | 1.1
| 22% | 78%
|
Studentships (all relevant research
areas)
| 18.9 |
| |
| Total | 184.6
| 56% | 44%
|
|
| 1 This analysis excluded all spend that does not relate to food and agriculture. The large portfolio of generic biochemistry, cell biology, genetics and structural biology research that underpins all areas of bioscience but which is not specific to food and agriculture or related systems have been excluded.
|
| 2 Figures are based on the primary area associated with individual research projects and exclude the overlaps that occur between science areas, therefore actual spend in any one area (including overlaps) will generally be higher.
|
| 3 Basic and Strategic/Applied research are defined based on the Frascati coding of individual research projects, as used in annual analyses for the Office for National Statistics (ONS). According to these definitions, BBSRC does not support Pure Basic research, but does fund Orientated Basic research that aims "to produce a broad base of knowledge likely to form the background to the solution of recognised/expected problems or possibilities".
|
B. FUNDING OF
BBSRC RESEARCH INSTITUTES
The above figures (Table 1) refer to spend in UK universities,
Research Council institutes (including BBSRC institutes) and other
eligible institutions. Of the £184.6 million total, £71.8
million was spent at BBSRC institutes. Table 2 shows the BBSRC
funding relating to agriculture and food at the BBSRC research
institutes; Table 3 shows total income for the BBSRC research
institutes, from all sources and for all research areas.
Table 2
RESEARCH RELATING TO AGRICULTURE AND FOOD AT BBSRC INSTITUTES
(2007-08)
|
| Institute1 | Main research areas
addressed
| Total research
spend (£M)
| % Basic
(Spend)
| % Strategic
and Applied
(Spend)
| BBSRC
capital
funding2
(£M)
|
|
| Babraham Institute (BI) | Diet and health
| 1.1 | 57
| 43 | 1.0
|
| Institute for Animal Health (IAH) | Animal health
| 14.1 | 25
| 75 | 17.6
|
| Institute of Food Research (IFR) | Food safety; Food manufacturing; Diet and health
| 10.8 | 43
| 57 | 1.3
|
| Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER)
| Plant and crop science |
5.9 | 61
| 39 | 4.1
|
| John Innes Centre (JIC) | Plant and crop science
| 17.2 | 54
| 46 | 2.3
|
| Roslin Institute (RI) | Animal health; Agricultural systems
| 6.8 | 46
| 54 | 1.8
|
| Rothamsted Research (RR) | Plant and crop science
| 15.9 | 30
| 70 | 6.4
|
| Institutes Total | |
71.8 | 41
| 59 | 34.6
|
|
Table 3
TOTAL INCOME OF BBSRC INSTITUTES (2007-08)
|
| Institute1 | BBSRC funding3
(£M)
| Other funding
(£M)
| % BBSRC
funding
|
|
| Babraham Institute (BI) | 25.1
| 8.1 | 76
|
| Institute for Animal Health (IAH) | 31.9
| 13.5 | 70
|
| Institute of Food Research (IFR) | 12.8
| 4.5 | 74
|
| Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER)
| 10.0 | 9.6
| 51 |
| John Innes Centre (JIC) | 23.2
| 7.2 | 76
|
| Roslin Institute (RI) | 11.6
| 9.0 | 56
|
| Rothamsted Research (RR) | 23.7
| 9.6 | 71
|
| Institutes Total | 138.3
| 61.5 | 69
|
|
| Source: BBSRC Annual Report 2007-08
| |
1 Includes BBSRC-sponsored Institutes receiving core funding from BBSRC in 2007-08.
Roslin Institute (RI) transferred to the University of Edinburgh on 1 April 2008; IGER transferred to Aberystwyth University (as the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, IBERS) on 1 April 2008.
|
| 2 BBSRC capital funding includes a representative proportion of total BBSRC capital funding to the each Institute, based on the proportion of research spend included in this analysis. Percentages of total BBSRC capital funding included here are as follows: 100% (IAH, IFR, IGER and RR); 90% (JIC); 80% (RI); 10% (BI).
|
| 3 BBSRC funding includes Core Strategic Grant funding, research grants and capital.
|
C. RELEVANCE TO
UK AGRICULTURE
The majority of BBSRC research spend is of direct short or
long term applicability to the UK agriculture and food sectors,
as well as being of international relevance. BBSRC has a small
number of programmes in agriculture and food research concerned
solely with international development, primarily relating to sub-Saharan
Africa or South Asia, and with co-funding from DFID. Most of these
grants, awarded through the Sustainable Agriculture Research for
International Development initiative, started after 1st April
2008 and therefore contributed only £0.1 million to the total
research spend in 2007-08. Total commitment to this initiative
is £6.83 million, of which the BBSRC contribution is 33%
and the remainder from DfID.
February 2009
16
Not printed. Back
|
