Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010 Environment, Biology and Agriculture

1. Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010Environment, Biology and Agriculture

2. Overview • Review Process • Strategy Outline • Progress against targets • Future plans

3. Review Process • Consultation • Consideration • Consolidation • Consultation (again) • Conclusion • Publication

4. Vision • Supports the policy and other functions of the Department and the work of its various client groups, through the provision of high quality and relevant scientific knowledge • Gains international recognition for its value and quality • Is a fundamental and essential part of the scientific community in Scotland

5. Objectives • To procure scientific research that is of high quality and strategically relevant to Scottish Ministers’ policy, legislative and enforcement functions • To improve knowledge and technology transfer from, and public awareness of, the research and its outputs • To ensure that the research base providing the work funded by SRG is efficient and effective

6. Objective 1 – Relevant Research • Relevance is key in future research funding • Commissioning through a programme approach • Less ‘basic’ and more ‘applied’ research • More competition for funds • More use of peer review assessment • Set up a Strategic Advisory Panel

7. Objective 2 - KTE • Increased emphasis on KT • Specific funding streams • End user engagement strategies • Continued emphasis on raising profile of SRG funded R&D

8. Objective 3 – efficiency and effectiveness • Need for structural change to build critical mass • Rolling grants to replace grant-in-aid • Identify what research needs to be conducted within an ‘Institute’ setting • Joint funding and collaboration with other funders • Development fund (seedcorn)

9. Progress against Targets • By 2010: improve quality and relevance of scientific research procured by SRG • Cross cutting themes • Programmes/work packages • System for peer review prior to commissioning

10. Progress against Targets • By 2010: the proportion of SRG funded research which is classified as policy relevant will increase to at least 75% of the total • Continuing interaction with stakeholders on research programmes • SSAP to advise on identification of what research is required within an Institute setting

11. Progress against Targets • By 2010: basic research will be less than 10% of the total programme • By April 2005: set up the Strategic Science Advisory Panel • By April 2006: publish a system for assessment of SEERAD research programmes and providers with a view to implementation by 2008 • By September 2005: publish end user engagement and publicity strategies

12. Progress against Targets • By 2010: Improve knowledge transfer activities across all research activities • KT plans set out within work package submissions • KT Strategy developed for Programmes 1-3 • KT plans subjected to peer review

13. Progress against Targets • By 2010: facilitate greater intellectual and financial critical mass among the MRPs • PWC report; ADL consultancy on structure and funding options • Current joint initiatives – ACES, EBRC, Rowett/Aberdeen University • ‘Centres of Excellence’ competition opened

14. Progress against Targets • By April 2010: increase the proportion of SEERAD programmes which align with programmes of other funders and increase the level of joint funding • Working agreements with other funders to be updated/developed • Involvement in BBSRC Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Panel and Funders Group established by Defra SFFG • Regular discussions with SFC on research

15. Plans for 2006 • Complete commissioning process • Assessment procedure • Centres of Excellence Awards • Environment and Health Package

16. Centres of Excellence Awards • Recent reviews found that Critical Mass was a significant issue for MRPs. Also gaps in the SEERAD portfolio to address emerging issues • Stronger relationships with HEIs and PSREs in Scotland seen as way forward. • Purpose of CoEs is to develop excellence and strategic capability in areas relevant to SEERAD • Strengthen Scottish infrastructure • Gain international recognition • Align with other funders initiatives

17. Centres of Excellence Awards • £1m per annum for 5 years, for 1-3 Centres • 14 Expressions of interest (3 pages), 20 organisations • First sift: Panel SE senior Professional staff, SSAC, comments from SHEFC, BBSRC. • 6 full proposals invited, suggested 2 might combine. • Currently establishing a peer review ‘college’ of UK, EU and Int’l QS referees. Also SSAP members, Programme Panel members and UK funders to provide strategic view • CoE Panel meeting March: SE, SFC, SSAC, UK funders and one ‘Champion/introducing member’ for each CoE. • Commission from 1st April 2006. Review 2008.

18. Environment and Health package • Emerging area identified as of increasing priority during Strategy review • No clear set of problems, needs and research priorities identified • SRG Programme Objective 12 “To consider how existing food production systems and changes in them affect human health through their environmental impact” • Aligned with SEERAD outcome – “People will be Healthier” – through clean air, safe water, waste reduced and safely disposed of, homes protected, access to green space

19. Environment and Health package • SE developing cross-department (HD-ERAD) Strategic Framework in Environment and Health • To create and optimise systems through which to pursue an environment promoting health and wellbeing in Scotland. Priority: Reduction in asthma and cardiovascular disease • New NERC programme commencing 2006, • “Particles, Pathogens and Pathways”. • Initially capacity building, I • In response mode. • SEERAD not co-funding as not directly aligned with SRG Strategy to increase relevance and a problem-led programme approach. • SE on NERC programme management Committee

20. Horizon scanning • Identify what research needs to be conducted within an ‘Institute’ setting • OST ‘RIPSS’ report • Critical Mass issues • Need for ‘expensive’ facilities • Biological advances

21. Peer Review of Work Packages 1. • New system for SEERAD-SRG to assess proposals prior to commissioning. New to MRPs • Review of Quality of Science, Strategic Relevance and Alignment with SEERAD Policy • Quality of Science review ‘college’ recruited by advertisement. MRPs nominated WP reviewers • WPs written in 3 sections to enable policy and relevance peer review • WP proposals sent to 2+ ‘list’, 3-4 nominated and 1-2 SRG named reviewers

22. Peer Review of Work Packages 2. • Reviewers score 1-3 (3=fail) for Strategic Relevance, Science quality, value for money, Management, Collaboration, KT. SRG compile summaries and highlight key points • Panel convened for each programme to consider reviewers comments. Panel provide feedback on WPs to MRPs. Minor revisions for most WPs, some require major revisions/rewrite • Revised proposals received from MRPs, sent to Panels for assessment of revisions.