Opinion Leader Research, 5th Floor, Holborn Gate, 330 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7QG

1
Who should be involved in setting research agenda?

• Findings of Stage One consultation
• Public and Stakeholders
• 9th December 2004

2
Agenda

• Background
• Consultation objectives
• Methodology
• Key findings Stage one
• Levels of trust
• Current system
• Ideal system
• Public involvement
• Headline findings Stage two
• Next steps

3
Background
4
Consultation objectives

• AEBC currently reviewing what shapes the research
  agenda in agricultural biotechnology
• As part of this work, a programme of consultation
  with the public and key stakeholders (scientists,
  farmers and field staff) was commissioned
• Key objectives were to
• Inform AEBCs thinking on research priorities
• Engage the different stakeholder groups in a
  dialogue with AEBC (and each-other)
• Provide stakeholders with sufficient information
  to allow them to understand and contribute to the
  debate

5
Consultation objectives (2)

• Key issues for exploration
• Current levels of awareness and knowledge
• Sources of information
• Perceptions of value and worth to society
• Perceptions of current system of agenda setting
• Views on an ideal system
• Response to concept of public involvement

6
Methodology
Group discussions with individual audiences
Stage one

• Move from spontaneous to informed decisions
• Gradual provision of information through case
  studies and experts
• Move from consultation in discrete audience
  groups to collaborative consultation

Half day workshops with public and stakeholders
Stage two
Full day workshop with combined audiences
Stage three
7
Methodology Stage one

• 9 group discussions were conducted between 5th
  12th October
• 6 groups with the public (in Bristol, Perth and
  Cardiff)
• Separate groups by gender and socio-economic
  group
• 1 group with scientists
• Including participants from Nottingham, Derby,
  Lincoln, Aberdeen and Aberystwyth with a variety
  of research interests
• 1 group with field advisors
• With representatives from a County Council,
  private consultants and LANTRA
• 1 group with farmers
• From Nottingham, Derby and Lincolnshire from
  variety of types of farms

8
Methodology Stage two

• Half day workshops were conducted between 30th
  November 7th December
• 1 workshop with the public
• In Perth
• 1 workshop with public
• In Bristol, with some participants travelling
  from Cardiff
• 1 workshop with other stakeholders
• In Nottingham, bringing together scientists,
  farmers and field staff

9
Key Findings

• Stage One

10
Context of declining trust in science

• The positive impact of science is acknowledged
• In terms of improved quality of life and the
  contribution to the success of the UK economy
• However, consensus that levels of trust in
  science and scientists are diminishing
• The public are more likely to question
  authority
• This cultural trend is exacerbated by top-of-mind
  scientific mistakes and the media use of
  scientific experts
• And a sense that science is out of control
• Consensus that the image of science needs work

11
Current system perceived to be flawed

• The public find it difficult to comment but point
  to research being conducted in trivial areas as
  evidence
• Farmers feel that research isnt being conducted
  which meets their needs
• Scientists feel that the interests of funding
  sources can distort research agendas
• Field staff are less critical but still have some
  concerns

12
Current funding system (contd)

• The public and farmers believe that scientists
  have too much influence
• Criticising them for pursuing their own interests
  and empire building
• However, scientists feel that in many respects
  this is out of their control as they have to
  follow the funding
• And that research driven by their own personal
  interest can be beneficial

13
Current funding system (contd)

• There is prevalent suspicion about the agendas of
  various funding sources
• The public and farmers are particularly negative
  about the commercial influence
• With scientists and field staff being more
  pragmatic
• There is also concern about Government agenda
• Scientists fear that some research is not
  considered because of political reasons and that
  policy is not sufficiently joined up
• Public also distrust Government influence

14
Ideal funding system

• Consensus that there should be some form of
  checks and balances
• And a mixed economy in terms of funding
• Some call for a collaborative approach to agenda
  setting and the need for a big picture
  perspective
• But less certainty about which organisation would
  be best placed to do this
• And prevalent concern about the risks of stifling
  scientific creativity or entrepreneurship

15
Who should be consulted?

• There is little consensus about who should set
  the agenda
• Scientists largely resistant to the idea of
  farmers and / or the public having a say
• There is concern that they do not have the skills
  or expertise to make informed decisions
• And their knee-jerk response could have
  damaging long-term repercussions for the health
  of science in the UK
• They point to decisions based on emotions and
  instinct
• They also have logistical concerns about public
  involvement

16
Who should be consulted? (contd)

• There are mixed views among the other groups
• Some hold similar views to the scientists
• However, many are receptive to the idea of
  stakeholder involvement
• Feeling that the public and farmers would help
  ground the process and bring common sense
• They feel it is particularly important for the
  public to have a say on some of the ethical
  questions
• There is again uncertainty how this would operate
  in practice
• What mechanisms would be put in place to allow
  the public to have a say
• And when should they be involved (upstream vs
  application stage)

17
Its public money being spent, the public has to
be involved and if they dont understand, theyve
got to be helped to understand, to be enabled to
be involved Farmers
If they listen to your views, it takes the fear
of the unknown away Public
Science is so technical and the concepts so
convoluted that you have to make compromises
addressing the general public and the consequence
is over-simplification and that means important
details get lost Scientists
I think that the opportunity is there for the
public to decide where the research goes in the
ballot box and thats where it should begin and
end Field staff
18
Headline findings

• Stage Two

19
Stage two agenda

• The main aim of the sessions was to provide
  participants with more information to allow them
  to discuss the issues from a more informed
  viewpoint
• This was done in a variety of ways
• Provision of briefing notes on the 4 key drivers
  of research funding, illustrated by case studies
• Provision of further detail on the current
  funding system
• Panel of expert speakers and QA

20
Key drivers

• To inform Government policy / regulation and
  legislation
• Food related public health scares (BSE, listeria,
  salmonella)
• To advance knowledge
• DNA, NERC project on soil biodiversity
• To help create wealth and make British Industry
  competitive
• Scientific plant breeding (Plant Breeding
  Institute)
• What the public feels is important
• OST studies, controversies such as GM foods,
  cloning

21
Key drivers (contd)

• Acknowledgement that the drivers are interlinked
  and that change in one area will affect others
• Across the groups, broad consensus that advancing
  knowledge and wealth creation are the most
  important drivers
• Most groups allocated the largest proportion of
  funding to blue skies research / knowledge
  advancement
• Base of research required for other drivers to
  operate
• Need for creativity / innovation

22
Key drivers (contd)

• To inform Government policy / regulation and
  legislation
• Concern that this leads to a reactive rather
  proactive funding
• High levels of mistrust of the Govt agenda
• Heated debate over whether policy is driving
  research or research is driving policy
• However, some public see benefits in terms of
  minimising levels of risk
• Wealth creation
• Broad consensus that important
• Some concern over the implications of
  privatisation (outlined in the case study)
• Scientists have strong views about the system
  being less joined up
• Public have mixed feelings debate the controls
  on private companies (regulation / public opinion
  / public need)

23
Key drivers (contd)

• What the public feels is important
• Can the public make an informed contribution?
• Debate over quality of scientific education
• Impact of the media
• Levels of interest
• Who is qualified to represent the public?
• Can this be done through representatives or is
  there a need to speak directly to the public
• Is this paying lip service to public
  involvement?
• Some negative responses coloured by previous
  attempts at public involvement that have been
  perceived to be unsuccessful

24
Key drivers (contd)

• What the public feels is important
• Broad consensus that there is a need for greater
  public involvement
• Views fall across a spectrum, from greater
  provision of information to participation in
  decision making
• Little consensus on the timing of public
  engagement
• Although many feel that there is more obvious
  scope for involvement at the application stage
• Debate over whether the public should have a say
  in ethical or risk based decisions
• All groups grappled with the question how the
  public could be involved
• Suggestions ranging from an extension of the
  current committee system to a Restoration type
  model

25
Next steps

• Analysis of Stage Two
• Report submitted before Christmas
• Planning for Stage Three
• 1 combined public and stakeholder workshop in
  London
• To be held on 2nd February 2004
• Details of agenda to be confirmed

26
Who should be involved in setting research agenda?