Memorandum submitted by FARM
Thank you for the opportunity to help frame
the scope of the forthcoming inquiry into the science capability
of Defra and its agencies. We particularly welcome this inquiry
since we recognise the importance of an effective science, research
and technology base as one of the principal foundations upon which
our food and farming industry must be based.
This is a brief summary, which builds on previous
submissions that we have made to the Office of Science and Technology
and the review of Agricultural Levy Bodies, both of which were
conducted in 2005 and a proposal for a Sustainable Food and
Farming Commission, which we presented to the SDC in the same
year.
Our overall concern with the science commissioned
by Defra is the apparent lack of a clear, coherent policy that
can be demonstrated to deliver the objectives set out in their
science and innovation strategy. Whilst recognising that a proportion
of Defra's work is intended to help inform policy decisions, we
feel that it is important to be able to place all of their work
within the context of how it will be applied in practice.
With limited resources, a process of prioritisation
must be applied when deciding which projects should be funded,
but it is unclear what these priorities are, and whose interests
they serve. This is particularly true of funding that is directed
through the Research Councils, where much of the science leaves
us with the impression that it is science itself rather than the
interests of farming (including the wider role of environmental
stewardship) that are being served.
We would therefore like the Committee to
consider how clearly Defra have defined the objectives to which
their science program is addressed and the extent to which these
meet the objectives stated in their science and innovation strategy
(which encompasses Sustainable Farming).
In commissioning scientific work, where funding
is passed through the Research Councils, we are left with the
impression that it is the Research Councils themselves rather
than Defra who set out the detail of the projects. If this is
indeed the case, then it is unclear how well the objectives of
the Research Councils (both individually and collectively) are
aligned to those of Defra's overall strategy.
We consider that the use of public funding for
scientific work within the area of food and science should be
justified by the fact that the public benefit; either directly
or because the science is used to address areas that are otherwise
unlikely to be supported by the private sector through lack of
clear commercial markets. Examples of these could include:
— The provision of independent testing
or assessment of commercial products.
— Enabling farmers to develop management
practices that allow environmental objectives to be integrated
with commercial production.
— Methods of management that allow a reduction
in agricultural inputs such a sprays or fertilizers.
Whilst there are example of projects within
Defra's science portfolio that are clearly intended to address
such areas, we have found it far more difficult to identify examples
where research has been effectively disseminated and applied at
farm level.
We would therefore like the Commission to
consider the extent to which the scope of the work that Defra
undertakes reflects a reasonable balance between the interests
of science and the wider expectations of the general public.
FARM was involved in some of the work undertaken
by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)
as part of the debate on the application of GM plant breeding
to agricultural crops. Although much of the debate was highly
polarised, we did feel the AEBC succeeded in providing a forum
where social and ethical issues could be debated alongside the
purely scientific arguments. We consider science, the refinement
of technology and finally, its application at a practical level
to be three distinctly separate phases in the development of new
technology. However, we are concerned that in the current absence
of a similar forum within food and farming, the predominance of
"sound science" as an argument in determining policy
is leading to an exclusion of the ethical and social considerations.
There are a number of contemporary issues, including the control
of TB, intensive farming practice, the effects of pesticides and
GM crops, which we feel cannot be resolved by science alone.
We would therefore like to Commission to
consider to what extent DEFRA science succeeds in integrating
social and ethical issues within technological development.
The final area that we would like the commission
to consider is whether examples exist elsewhere within Europe
that can be used to develop models within the UK whereby science
is more closely integrated with practical farming. We have looked
at examples of work being undertaken elsewhere within Europe by
research facilities such as Wageningen in Holland, where farmers
are engaged in the process of identifying areas where new research
is needed and working farms are used as a test bed to ensure that
the research has a direct relevance and benefit to working farmers.
Such facilities appear to be an effective means of disseminating
scientific understanding to those for whom its use is intended.
We would therefore like the Commission to
consider is whether examples exist elsewhere within Europe that
can be used to develop models here in the UK whereby science can
be more closely integrated with practical farming and environmental
stewardship.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to
help frame this inquiry.
March 2008
| 
