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

Overview Review Process Strategy Outline Progress against targets Future plans

Review Process ConsultationConsiderationConsolidation Consultation (again) ConclusionPublication

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

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

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

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

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)

Progress against Targets By 2010: improve quality and relevance of scientific research procured by SRG 1. Cross cutting themes 2. Programmes/work packages 3. System for peer review prior to commissioning

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 1. Continuing interaction with stakeholders on research programmes 2. SSAP to advise on identification of what research is required within an Institute setting

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

Progress against Targets By 2010: Improve knowledge transfer activities across all research activities 1. KT plans set out within work package submissions 2. KT Strategy developed for Programmes KT plans subjected to peer review

Progress against Targets By 2010: facilitate greater intellectual and financial critical mass among the MRPs 1. PWC report; ADL consultancy on structure and funding options 2. Current joint initiatives – ACES, EBRC, Rowett/Aberdeen University 3. ‘Centres of Excellence’ competition opened

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 1. Working agreements with other funders to be updated/developed 2. Involvement in BBSRC Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Panel and Funders Group established by Defra SFFG 3. Regular discussions with SFC on research

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

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 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

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 1 st April Review 2008.

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

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

Horizon scanning Identify what research needs to be conducted within an ‘Institute’ setting 1. OST ‘RIPSS’ report 2. Critical Mass issues 3. Need for ‘expensive’ facilities 4. Biological advances

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

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.