The ARF welcomes the opportunity to comment on the AEBC Consultation on Research Agendas in Agricultural Biotechnology.
Four main questions were addressed and a number of issues were identified behind each. I will comment on these in turn, but before doing so I would note that the stimulus for the study has come from agricultural biotechnology research and an initial observation is that whilst attention is quite rightly given the research focus, full consideration also needs to be given to the end users and the requirements from agriculture and the food industries that contribute to and exploit the research.
1. I am responding to the AEBC consultation on behalf of the Applied Research Forum for Farming and Food that was set up as a recommendation from the Curry Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. As such the views represent those of the seven agricultural levy boards in GB. Within the ARF we have identified key areas where particular attention needs to be focused and biotechnological solutions may be appropriate. These are: Waste management, water, biodiversity, and nutrition and health.
2. The AEBC initial analysis does describe the key drivers and their development over time. Given the broad nature of the descriptions it is difficult to identify specific gaps.
3. The relative importance of specific drivers is difficult to establish as inevitably they are interlinked. Within different sectors of agriculture, and at different points along the supply chain the priorities accorded to each will differ according to the target.
We do recognise that scientific curiosity plays a role in setting the research agenda and that near-market R&D is seen to be at the other end of the research spectrum. Although there are opportunities for businesses to exploit results from strategic R&D on a propriety basis with appropriate IP arrangements, there still remains a considerable gap where market failure come into play. This 'gap' is particularly pertinent for levy organisations where increasingly, biotechnological solutions that have previously been considered to be of a more strategic nature have the potential to deliver real benefits nearer to the market and in a shorter time scale. As such we would place greater emphasis on these elements in meeting industry needs for competitiveness and wealth creation.
4. We do note increasing emphasis being based on support for policy and regulation, but this needs to be married with practical and commercial application. The impact of the developing 'omic' technologies and bioinformatics is recognised as being crucial and investment to maintain the underpinning research base for exploitation will be essential for the future competitive position of GB agriculture.
5. We recognise different drivers but would emphasise the importance to the end users in delivering benefit to the market place whilst protecting human health and the environment.
6. As well as having the 'bottoms up' contribution from the research community, the increasing scrutiny from government needs to be balanced with input from other sectors. One important area where the discussion about balance could be improved would be through greater integration of the R&D programmes from the basic, through strategic to applied.
7. The mechanisms are improving and we welcome the cross cutting initiatives from research councils and government departments. Greater co-ordination in developing strategy will have a beneficial effect on delivery too.
8. Horizon scanning has been a useful exercise, but there is the need to ensure that delivery of information from commissioned programmes is effective as Foresight has longer-term, basic and strategic R&D as a focus. The information from these programmes needs to be carried down the research supply chain so outcomes can be properly exploited. Solutions to longer term problems may be solved by R&D based on biotechnological developments that are coming nearer to the market and the research community need to have effective links and communication to ensure delivery
9. We welcome the opportunity to be involved in contributing to the development of policy and priorities. The ARF represents the agricultural levy bodies in UK and as such it is very well placed to represent cross-sectoral views on animal and plant sciences and on the environmental aspects relating to agriculture and food.
10. Areas where the withdrawal of near market research has created gaps include a lack of skills base in some key cross industry areas. Amongst these is genetics and breeding to exploit information generated by genomics knowledge e.g. mapping specific plant genomes is either ongoing or being proposed, but there needs to be the technical skills to exploit output research via both conventional and eventually GM routes; soil science from protection to nutrient management is increasing of relevance to the industry and environment, and practical plant pathology and plant physiology, are increasingly at risk and may limit industry ability to exploit understanding from the new biotechnology research.
11. Over recent years the development of LINK programmes has been important and increasing flexibility of this type of funding mechanism to involve public and private partnerships has been valuable to all sectors of the industry.
12. The UK research base has been eroded and there is a need to recognise where core skills remain, protect and exploit these for UK benefit. Where the UK position is not compromised or there are clear advantages to co-operation, opportunities for international collaboration need to be exploited. This should encourage industry investment in research if the appropriate skills were there and there was a demonstrable benefit from involvement. Agricultural biotechnology in the broadest sense has a significant opportunity to provide solutions to a wide range of issues facing the industry.
13. The wider community often perceives 'Biotechnology' as having negative connotations, unless there are, for example, clear medical benefits. There is a real need to ensure that there is openness in developing the research agenda for public sector agricultural biotechnology to address the concerns that are raised e.g. regarding pesticide use, food quality and safety including plant and animal diseases and what is often assumed the development of GM solutions. In this context there needs to be a far greater understanding of science and technology, and appreciation of 'risk' by the public. These are areas that need to be addressed over a much longer term through the education system in this country.
I hope that these comments are of value to the AEBC.
Dr R M J Storey
Research & Development Director, British Potato Council
For and on behalf of Applied Research Forum
| 
Bookmark this page
Contact us
Links
Site Design
