Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Stephen James" <<address removed>>]

DFID E-CONSULTATION

Response from Rothamsted Research

Rothamsted Research (?Rothamsted?) is a BBSRC-sponsored public-sector
research establishment focused on science in support of sustainable
agriculture and interactions with the environment.  Rothamsted  employs over
350 scientists as well as approximately 100 postgraduate students and
visiting scientists (including many from developing countries).  Rothamsted
is the one UK institute that integrates a range of relevant scientific
disciplines towards provision of new understanding on which to base improved
agricultural practices and products.

Rothamsted has an outstanding record of successful research on agricultural
systems in both developed and developing countries.  The Institute has also
been responsible for training scientists from developing countries in
appropriate technologies as well as other contributions to capacity
building.  In 1993, the Institute established its own charity, Rothamsted
International, to further its enthusiasm for development oriented research.

After discussions with key scientists involved in tropical agricultural
development within the Institute, the following comments were made
concerning DFID?s relationship with the UK biological science base and its
role in exploiting R & D for development:
*        The UK is at the forefront of international quality agricultural
research much of which is applicable to developing countries.  DFID has not
always made best use of this elite science.
1.      DFID has tended to concentrate on its traditional contractors and not
necessarily to innovative scientists with international standing conducting
the most relevant research.  Even in the ?traditional? cases, the funding
has been erratic and inconsistent resulting in the loss of valuable
accessible collections of international significance. It is very important
that in any emerging approach DFID build on the best of what has gone
before.
2.      It was clear that knowledge of the priorities defined in the ?yellow
brick? was essential for successful responses to funding calls, but many
found this to be difficult to penetrate.  A more accessible, equitable and
transparent application and review process for all project funding is
essential, if the best UK science is to be accessed.
3.      DFID has failed to recognise that it has a responsibility for the
encouragement and nurturing of UK science and scientist who are enthusiastic
about developing countries work.
*        The research infrastructure is bureaucratic and over-managed.
Innovative scientists able to obtain other project funding have preferred
not to seek DFID support for their research because of its cumbersome
management by log-frames, which were poorly explained to the research
community, and its excessive monitoring of outputs.  Other international
funding bodies such as the Gatsby Charitable Trust, Wellcome Foundation and
Rockefeller Foundation are much less bureaucratic and able to exploit the
best science.
*        As has been proven, excellent scientists are able to work with
resource-poor farmers to solve applied research problems and generate data
worthy of publication in elite scientific journals (see Khan et al., 1997,
Nature 388, 631-632) and so have impact in the farming and research
community.  Low input agriculture will not develop if under-pinned by low
quality science and there is a particular need to build capacity in
scientific excellence in many tropical countries. Poor countries do not
deserve poor science.
*        There is little confidence in the UK research community that DFID
country offices will be any more effective in the identification of good
science proposals to resolve development problems, than DFID UK.
*        DFID as a major funder into the CG should facilitate the best UK
science having a role in the CGs as well as helping UK to contribute in a
positive way to research programmes to which DFID is contributing.
*        The general assumption that science has already provided answers to
most agricultural development issues and that these need only to be
effectively transferred to the appropriate end-user is short-sighted and
flawed.
1.      Problems caused by pests, pathogens, weeds and other constraints are
dynamic and constantly evolve to create new challenges.  The research status
quo is inadequate to solve such problems. Biological parallels from medical
science (e.g. the emergence of HIV) should dismiss the complacent notion
that established science is a solution.
2.      Developing agriculture needs the best available innovative science that
can respond quickly and effectively to tackle new threats.  Credible,
effective and relevant technologies are still needed for the management of
many important tropical pests, diseases and weeds some old ones some newly
emerging.
3.      The fact that UK has suffered a decline in agricultural research 
targeted
at disease and yield means that DFID's role is even more critical.
4.      In contrast to the views expressed by DFID there is an urgent need for
much new innovative science to address developing country requirements.
Socio-economics or any other discipline alone will not solve development
issues.


The UK Government?s commitment to reducing world poverty provides a real
challenge to the R & D community to develop technologies that will secure
high quality food supplies in the quantities required.  This will be most
effectively met by the exploitation of the best UK science, linked to
effective in country groups.  If the science is rigorously evaluated in a
transparent process that has the confidence of the research community in the
UK and abroad, high quality R & D could be provided by a much reduced
management system.  There is an urgent need to attract elite UK scientists,
many of whom have independently established excellent contacts in tropical
countries, into DFID funded programmes to increase the impact of the very
considerable funds committed to improvements in developing agriculture and
the alleviation of poverty.

It is timely and essential to utilise more of the considerable research base
in the UK committed to agricultural development; commit less funds to the
management of the science and more to its development and exploitation.
This will require active engagement and support of the science community on
a broader front in a way that appears not be the case at present.  A
worryingly deep low point has been reached. To give this the necessary
impetus a separate unit, well-staffed, well-funded, should be established
within DFID acting as an interface between DFID and the UK science base
commissioning research that will re-establish the connectivity of DFID
within the UK.  If this is not possible within the DFID policy framework
then the task (and funding) should be given to a relevant research council
or other experienced body.

Agricultural development has a leading role to play as an engine for growth
in developing countries and good research pays dividends in this regard.
Demand-led research, rigorously evaluated by a independent research
committees, conducted and managed by the best scientists in the UK and in
developing countries, linked to appropriate entrepreneurs and innovators in
country able to provide clear uptake pathways would provide a model for the
application of appropriate R & D for agricultural development.


15 May 2004


For:
Rothamsted Research
Rothamsted
Harpenden
Hertfordshire
AL5 2JQ
Tel: 01582 763133
Email: <address removed>


=============================================================
To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members,
make sure that you send your reply to <address removed>

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the 
message body:

unsubscribe science-and-technology <your-email-address>