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

Strategic Research for Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010SEERAD 2005 – 2010

Environment, Biology and AgricultureEnvironment, Biology and Agriculture

OverviewOverview

Review ProcessReview Process

Strategy OutlineStrategy Outline

Progress against targetsProgress against targets

Future plansFuture plans

Review ProcessReview Process

ConsultationConsultation

ConsiderationConsideration

ConsolidationConsolidation

Consultation (again)Consultation (again)

ConclusionConclusion

PublicationPublication

VisionVision

Supports the policy and other functions of Supports the policy and other functions of the Department and the work of its various the Department and the work of its various client groups, through the provision of high client groups, through the provision of high quality and relevant scientific knowledgequality and relevant scientific knowledge

Gains international recognition for its value Gains international recognition for its value and qualityand quality

Is a fundamental and essential part of the Is a fundamental and essential part of the scientific community in Scotlandscientific community in Scotland

ObjectivesObjectives

To procure scientific research that is of high To procure scientific research that is of high quality and strategically relevant to Scottish quality and strategically relevant to Scottish Ministers’ policy, legislative and enforcement Ministers’ policy, legislative and enforcement functionsfunctions

To improve knowledge and technology transfer To improve knowledge and technology transfer from, and public awareness of, the research and from, and public awareness of, the research and its outputsits outputs

To ensure that the research base providing the To ensure that the research base providing the work funded by SRG is efficient and effectivework funded by SRG is efficient and effective

Objective 1 – Relevant ResearchObjective 1 – Relevant Research

Relevance is key in future research Relevance is key in future research fundingfunding

Commissioning through a programme Commissioning through a programme approachapproach

Less ‘basic’ and more ‘applied’ researchLess ‘basic’ and more ‘applied’ research

More competition for fundsMore competition for funds

More use of peer review assessmentMore use of peer review assessment

Set up a Strategic Advisory PanelSet up a Strategic Advisory Panel

Objective 2 - KTEObjective 2 - KTE

Increased emphasis on KTIncreased emphasis on KT

Specific funding streamsSpecific funding streams

End user engagement strategiesEnd user engagement strategies

Continued emphasis on raising profile of Continued emphasis on raising profile of SRG funded R&DSRG funded R&D

Objective 3 – efficiency and Objective 3 – efficiency and effectivenesseffectiveness

Need for structural change to build critical Need for structural change to build critical massmass

Rolling grants to replace grant-in-aidRolling grants to replace grant-in-aid

Identify what research needs to be Identify what research needs to be conducted within an ‘Institute’ settingconducted within an ‘Institute’ setting

Joint funding and collaboration with other Joint funding and collaboration with other fundersfunders

Development fund (seedcorn)Development fund (seedcorn)

Progress against TargetsProgress against Targets

By 2010: improve quality and relevance By 2010: improve quality and relevance of scientific research procured by SRGof scientific research procured by SRG

1.1. Cross cutting themesCross cutting themes

2.2. Programmes/work packagesProgrammes/work packages

3.3. System for peer review prior to System for peer review prior to commissioning commissioning

Progress against Targets Progress against Targets

By 2010: the proportion of SRG funded By 2010: the proportion of SRG funded research which is classified as policy relevant research which is classified as policy relevant will increase to at least 75% of the totalwill increase to at least 75% of the total

1.1. Continuing interaction with stakeholders on Continuing interaction with stakeholders on research programmesresearch programmes

2.2. SSAP to advise on identification of what SSAP to advise on identification of what research is required within an Institute settingresearch is required within an Institute setting

Progress against Targets Progress against Targets

By 2010: basic research will be less than 10% of By 2010: basic research will be less than 10% of the total programmethe total programme

By April 2005: set up the Strategic Science By April 2005: set up the Strategic Science Advisory PanelAdvisory Panel

By April 2006: publish a system for assessment By April 2006: publish a system for assessment of SEERAD research programmes and providers of SEERAD research programmes and providers with a view to implementation by 2008with a view to implementation by 2008

By September 2005: publish end user By September 2005: publish end user engagement and publicity strategiesengagement and publicity strategies


By 2010: Improve knowledge transfer By 2010: Improve knowledge transfer activities across all research activitiesactivities across all research activities

1.1. KT plans set out within work package KT plans set out within work package submissionssubmissions

2.2. KT Strategy developed for Programmes KT Strategy developed for Programmes 1-31-3

3.3. KT plans subjected to peer reviewKT plans subjected to peer review


By 2010: facilitate greater intellectual and By 2010: facilitate greater intellectual and financial critical mass among the MRPsfinancial critical mass among the MRPs

1.1. PWC report; ADL consultancy on PWC report; ADL consultancy on structure and funding optionsstructure and funding options

2.2. Current joint initiatives – ACES, EBRC, Current joint initiatives – ACES, EBRC, Rowett/Aberdeen UniversityRowett/Aberdeen University

3.3. ‘‘Centres of Excellence’ competition Centres of Excellence’ competition openedopened


By April 2010: increase the proportion of By April 2010: increase the proportion of SEERAD programmes which align with SEERAD programmes which align with programmes of other funders and increase the programmes of other funders and increase the level of joint fundinglevel of joint funding

1.1. Working agreements with other funders to be Working agreements with other funders to be updated/developedupdated/developed

2.2. Involvement in BBSRC Sustainable Agriculture Involvement in BBSRC Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Panel and Funders Group established Strategy Panel and Funders Group established by Defra SFFGby Defra SFFG

3.3. Regular discussions with SFC on research Regular discussions with SFC on research

Plans for 2006Plans for 2006

Complete commissioning processComplete commissioning process

Assessment procedureAssessment procedure

Centres of Excellence AwardsCentres of Excellence Awards

Environment and Health PackageEnvironment and Health Package


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


£1m per annum for 5 years, for 1-3 Centres£1m per annum for 5 years, for 1-3 Centres14 Expressions of interest (3 pages), 20 organisations14 Expressions of interest (3 pages), 20 organisationsFirst sift: Panel SE senior Professional staff, SSAC, First sift: Panel SE senior Professional staff, SSAC, comments from SHEFC, BBSRC.comments from SHEFC, BBSRC.6 full proposals invited, suggested 2 might combine.6 full proposals invited, suggested 2 might combine.Currently establishing a peer review ‘college’ of UK, EU Currently establishing a peer review ‘college’ of UK, EU and Int’l QS referees. Also SSAP members, Programme and Int’l QS referees. Also SSAP members, Programme Panel members and UK funders to provide strategic viewPanel members and UK funders to provide strategic viewCoE Panel meeting March: SE, SFC, SSAC, UK funders CoE Panel meeting March: SE, SFC, SSAC, UK funders and one ‘Champion/introducing member’ for each CoE.and one ‘Champion/introducing member’ for each CoE.Commission from 1Commission from 1stst April 2006. Review 2008. April 2006. Review 2008.

Environment and Health packageEnvironment and Health package

Emerging area identified as of increasing priority during Emerging area identified as of increasing priority during Strategy reviewStrategy review

No clear set of problems, needs and research priorities No clear set of problems, needs and research priorities identifiedidentified

SRG Programme Objective 12 SRG Programme Objective 12 “To consider how existing “To consider how existing food production systems and changes in them affect food production systems and changes in them affect human health through their environmental impact”human health through their environmental impact”

Aligned with SEERAD outcome – Aligned with SEERAD outcome – “People will be “People will be Healthier”Healthier” – through clean air, safe water, waste – through clean air, safe water, waste reduced and safely disposed of, homes protected, reduced and safely disposed of, homes protected, access to green spaceaccess to green space

Environment and Health packageEnvironment and Health package

SE developing cross-department (HD-ERAD) Strategic SE developing cross-department (HD-ERAD) Strategic Framework in Environment and HealthFramework in Environment and Health– To create and optimise systems through which to pursue an To create and optimise systems through which to pursue an

environment promoting health and wellbeing in Scotland. environment promoting health and wellbeing in Scotland. Priority: Reduction in asthma and cardiovascular disease Priority: Reduction in asthma and cardiovascular disease

New NERC programme commencing 2006, New NERC programme commencing 2006, – ““Particles, Pathogens and Pathways”. Particles, Pathogens and Pathways”. – Initially capacity building, IInitially capacity building, I– In response mode. In response mode. – SEERAD not co-funding as not directly aligned with SRG SEERAD not co-funding as not directly aligned with SRG

Strategy to increase relevance and a problem-led programme Strategy to increase relevance and a problem-led programme approach. approach.

– SE on NERC programme management Committee SE on NERC programme management Committee

Horizon scanningHorizon scanning

Identify what research needs to be Identify what research needs to be conducted within an ‘Institute’ settingconducted within an ‘Institute’ setting

1.1. OST ‘RIPSS’ reportOST ‘RIPSS’ report

2.2. Critical Mass issuesCritical Mass issues

3.3. Need for ‘expensive’ facilitiesNeed for ‘expensive’ facilities

4.4. Biological advancesBiological advances

Peer Review of Work Packages 1.Peer Review of Work Packages 1.

New system for SEERAD-SRG to assess New system for SEERAD-SRG to assess proposals prior to commissioning. New to MRPsproposals prior to commissioning. New to MRPsReview of Quality of Science, Strategic Review of Quality of Science, Strategic Relevance and Alignment with SEERAD PolicyRelevance and Alignment with SEERAD PolicyQuality of Science review ‘college’ recruited by Quality of Science review ‘college’ recruited by advertisement. MRPs nominated WP reviewersadvertisement. MRPs nominated WP reviewersWPs written in 3 sections to enable policy and WPs written in 3 sections to enable policy and relevance peer reviewrelevance peer reviewWP proposals sent to 2+ ‘list’, 3-4 nominated WP proposals sent to 2+ ‘list’, 3-4 nominated and 1-2 SRG named reviewersand 1-2 SRG named reviewers

Peer Review of Work Packages 2.Peer Review of Work Packages 2.

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

Documents

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