Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Rothamsted Research (SFS 15a)
ENSURING INDUSTRY-RELEVANCE AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES ARE OPTIMISED IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 This short comment paper is prepared
at the request of the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Committee following discussion with Rothamsted Research
about the way to fund agricultural research in the UK such that
it ensures both opportunities for scientific advances and continuing
industry relevance are both optimised.
1.2 The Rothschild report in 1972 recognised
that agriculture requires a "proxy customer" (then identified
as MAFF)[12]
to commission relevant research on behalf of an agricultural industry
that was comprised of large numbers of small enterprises. For
about a 15 year period—from ca 1974 to ca 1989
arrangements worked quite well despite early misgivings in the
scientific community.
1.3 In essence, funding allocated from the "science
vote" to MAFF was strategically allocated to broad areas
of scientific activity in support of different industry sectors.
For example: "vegetable crop breeding", "cereal
disease control", "poultry diseases" etc. The funding
channelled through the (then) AFRC[13]
to relevant institutes which had a clear obligation to meet industry
priorities. There was one primary objective for the use of these
funds; to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the UK
agricultural and horticultural industries. Industry representatives
were influential over the specific problems and research topics
addressed by institutes through membership of governing bodies,
MAFF committees and AFRC Council. Scientists accepted their obligation
to take up new projects and drop others under pressure and influence
from the industry.
1.4 For the last 20 years (from ca 1989)
there has been a steady erosion of both funding and the priority
directed towards "industry relevant" research in agriculture
and horticulture. There have been a number of different reasons
for this including the creation of Defra and BBSRC[14]
in place of MAFF and AFRC. In Defra, a combination of the following
means that the agricultural industry now sees little of direct
benefit emanating from Defra research expenditure:
— drastic reductions in Defra budgets for
research;
— a policy shift that emphasised environmental
issues over economic production;
— the loss of the concept of government
as a proxy customer; and
— exclusive emphasis on policy-related
research.
1.5 A positive innovation in the last 10
years or so has been the operation by Defra (with BBSRC) of a
series of LINK programmes which have enabled close public-private
partnering in pre-competitive research of direct relevance to
industry needs. Successful LINK projects have done much to maintain
the positive association between the agricultural industry and
the UK research community.
1.6 In BBSRC, the priority accorded to internationally
competitive science, the need for research institutes to be assessed
by the same criteria as universities and a positive policy not
to support applied research (which was seen to be the role of
Defra or industry) has meant that those scientists with an inclination
to work on applied, problem-solving projects with industry relevance
have been devalued (and many have been made redundant) while priority
has been given to the recruitment and retention of scientists
in institutes that could generate research income from research
councils in competition with universities. The distinctions between
institute science and university science have become increasingly
blurred and, until recently, practical application of science
(with the exception of protecting intellectual property and creation
of spin-out companies) was not accorded high priority.
2. A MODEL FOR
ENSURING OPTIMISATION
OF SCIENTIFIC
ADVANCES AND
CONTINUING INDUSTRY
RELEVANCE
2.1 The period following the Rothschild
transfer of science vote funding from the research councils to
government departments as a proxy customer is suggestive that
returning to something akin to how this arrangement worked might
be a good direction in which to move.
2.2 The objectives for the use of funding for
research need to be clearly enunciated and unless this is done
there is unlikely to be beneficial change. For two decades, the
long-range objectives have not been clearly enunciated even if
short-term expedient objectives have been clear.
2.3 It is suggested that a distinction is
drawn between funding which is allocated primarily to enable high
quality and novel "investigator-led" projects to be
pursued and that which is allocated specifically to ensure that
practical problems of direct interest and relevance to particular
sectors of the agriculture and horticulture industries are being
addressed. On the assumption that this is accepted, a determination
would need to be made of the magnitude of public funding (from
the total sum available) that it was considered appropriate to
allocate to the latter.
2.4 It would be appropriate for there to
be four constituencies with a legitimate interest in the way this
funding was utilised:
— farmers, growers and their technical
advisors;
— suppliers of goods and services to the
agricultural industry;
— one or more government departments with
an interest in land-based activity;
— one or more research councils representing
both the scientific community and the public at large (at arms-length
from government).
2.5 Structured and reasoned debate and advocacy
among the parties could be the vehicle by which allocated funding
was partitioned between an agreed set of sub-divisions of industry-relevant
activity. Doubtless economic value, perceived opportunity, relative
risk and numerous other factors would enter the discussion. The
sort of sub-divisions might be as broad as: horticulture, arable
agriculture, non-edible crops, dairy, livestock—for example
(but this would need discussion). The system would have to allow
for an argued reallocation at about five year intervals. It seems
reasonable that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
(AHDB) alongside Defra and BBSRC, as the major stakeholder research
funders, would have the primary responsibility to recommend and
agree proportionate allocations.
2.6 For a fixed duration, perhaps five years,
such proportionate allocations of public funding as had been agreed
would be ring-fenced and dedicated to meeting the specific needs
of the sector for which they were allocated.
2.7 At the same time, one or more primary
research-providers for each sector would be identified. This is
necessary to ensure there is sufficient financial stability and
confidence for a research organisation to develop and implement
a strategy of investment in relevant scientific (and other) skills,
specialist facilities etc.
2.8 Identification of: the magnitude of
research funding; a five year horizon to work with; and specification
of the research provider(s) who would be given the responsibility
of delivering industry-relevant outcomes, provides the canvass
on which the detail of specific opportunities, research areas,
problems and policy priorities can be painted.
2.9 There is probably no better way of drilling
into and agreeing the detail of dynamic, forward-looking and relevant
research than to establish direct dialogue between senior research
managers in provider organisations and those who represent business
leadership positions in the agricultural industry. In broad terms,
the consortia that LINK can create may reflect (but on a more
permanent and less project-specific basis) the type of public-private
committee structure that would be established. A very substantial
knowledge transfer component would be implicit and embedded in
the whole research process from the outset—and substantially
more resource than hitherto would be allocated to the practical
implementation of research findings where this was clearly justified.
A key obligation on all parties would also be to ensure the implementation
of a programme that was sufficiently well balanced as to ensure
the continued existence and succession of key scientific expertise
and skills that the industry could continue to draw on in the
long-term.
2.10 Review of impact and outcomes achieved
by the research community on behalf of the industry would be conducted
regularly on a five year cycle and would be the responsibility
of the sponsor bodies (Defra, BBSRC, AHDB) where the criteria
for success from the investment made would be based on the extent
of innovation and progress made towards advancing the economic
performance, sustainability and competitiveness of the sector
in question.
2.11 The diagrams (Annex 1) provide a schematic
overview of the interactions, primary players and issues (although
not cast explicitly to illustrate the operation of the sort of
model described above).
Ian Crute
Rothamsted Research
April 2009
12 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Back
13
The Agricultural and Food Research Council. Back
14
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Back
| 
