The ARF  response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee enquiry into the effectiveness of the Research Councils' knowledge transfer activities is as follows:

RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

EVIDENCE FROM THE APPLIED RESEARCH FORUM FOR FARMING AND FOOD (LEVY BOARD MEMBERS) RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO THE BBSRC

Summary

The agricultural/horticultural levy bodies, working as the Applied Research Forum, believe that the BBSRC could significantly improve its knowledge transfer in programmes which relate to the agricultural industry. Whilst a number of BBSRC Institutes take working with the industry seriously, this does not appear to be strongly supported by the Council. Effective routes to exploitation for much of the responsive mode work are not evident.

1.  The Applied Research Forum for Farming and Food (ARF) has a core membership drawn from the seven agricultural and horticultural levy bodies within the UK. It was established by the levy bodies in response to recommendations by the Policy Commission on Farming and Food.

Knowledge transfer is at the heart of levy body activity, both working separately and together as the Applied Research Forum. We fund applied, and to some extent strategic, research on behalf of our levy payers (sectors of the farming, and in some cases, primary processing, industry) and then transfer the knowledge gained to them through a range of activities and publications.

2.  We have links with the BBSRC through a number of routes:

• The BBSRC has a representative on the ARF, along with representatives of Defra and the devolved administrations, the FSA and the farming unions.
• Members of the levy bodies sit on various BBSRC committees/panels.
• Many of the levy bodies have strong links with one or more BBSRC Institute, where we fund research.

 3.  BBSRC funds agricultural and food research:

• through core funding to research institutes, such as Rothamsted Research (RR), the Institute of Grassland and Arable Research (IGER), the Institute for Food Research (IFR), the Roslin Institute (RI) and the John Innes Centre (JIC);
• through responsive mode funding to eg universities and research stations, based pimarily on quality of science;
• through initiatives such as the Crop Science Initiative;
• through LINK funding matched by industry, in programmes such as Sustainable Arable LINK, Sustainable Livestock Production LINK and Horticultural LINK. Levy boards are involved in a large number of projects in these programmes and have a major responsibility for KT flowing from them.

4.  Some BBSRC institutes are keen to ensure that the science they undertake has practical outcomes that are delivered to the industry. For example, RR and IGER have worked with the ARF in the planning and delivery of workshops on soil and agricultural waste management, and are involved in the follow-up to ensure messages get out to farmers. RR has a separate company (Rothamsted Research Association), limited by guarantee, which has a membership largely comprising agronomists and growers. Its function is to make its membership aware of the research RR is undertaking and the implications of it for the industry. Many events are held in conjunction with one or more levy boards and the Lead Technical Director of the ARF is a member of the Board. Broom's Barn, a research station belonging to RR but funded largely by the sugar beet industry through a levy, plays a leading role in the sugar beet industry's KT programme. JIC has strong links with the plant breeding community. IGER has strong links with farmers and others involved in grassland management. However, although many Institute Directors have a commitment to this kind of KT, our understanding that this is not regarded as core activity by BBSRC, who regard IP and start-up companies as of prime importance. Whilst we recognize the value of these activities, these do not provide the primary route for delivering knowledge and technology to the agricultural sector. BBSRC does not seem to recognize that agriculture is a very different industry to others, such as the pharmaceutical industry, which it serves. Although some sectors of agriculture, such as the agricultural chemical industries, have research departments which can feed into basic research, most plant breeding businesses are not well funded, and individual farming businesses need planned routes for delivery.

5.  We are also concerned about the "pipeline" for responsive mode research, particularly in the university sector. We feel that much of this is not well focused on industry needs, even in the long term, and there is little consideration of effective routes to exploitation. A defined process of science management, involving stakeholder engagement (including levy bodies), would considerably strengthen the process. Exposure of scientists to the industries which they are trying to serve would be very valuable. When levy bodies have interacted with university programmes, there have been significant benefits for the industry-for example the MLC's work to improve food safety following challenges such as E. coli 0157-H7.

February 2006

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/995/995we07.htm