EROSION IN NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY: EXAMPLES FROM ROTHAMSTED RESEARCH

Background

  1.  In the financial year 2002-03, Rothamsted Research received £7,085k in research funding from Defra. Funding has declined in each of three out of the four following years to: £5,742k in 2003-04; £5,883k in 2004-05; £5,022k in 2005-06 and £3,997k in 2006-07. This loss of over £3 million in research funding has severely eroded scientific expertise in some areas of critical national importance. In the five year period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2007 (projected) the number of scientific research staff in Rothamsted Research has declined from 352 to 294. This 16% reduction in scientific headcount is almost all attributable to reductions in Defra research funding.

Affected areas of science

  2.  There are seven areas of particular concern where critical mass of expertise is being or has been severely eroded:

—  Weed ecology and control.

—  Alternatives to agrochemicals for pest and disease control of major crops.

—  Environmental fate and behaviour of pesticides.

—  Crop agronomy and nutrition.

—  Honey bee pathology.

—  Soil processes and environmental protection.

  3.  The areas where expertise has been lost are those where the work is either applied, policy driven or addresses specific problems as distinct from generic scientific principles. As such, this is the sort of research that would not be considered appropriate for research council support and formerly was supported by MAFF (and now Defra) as a proxy customer for the land-management sector or in support of policy objectives.

Weed ecology and control

  4.  With the exception of the specific issue of herbicide resistance, which still receives some support from Defra, there is now no work on weed ecology and management being conducted in Rothamsted Research. Not so very long ago, there was a whole AFRC institute (Weed Research Organisation, Oxford) devoted to this subject. Weeds are not only the most significant constraint on production but herbicides are the most serious contaminants of water. Also, in a range of contexts non-crop plant species (ie weeds) have the largest contribution to make to the ecology of managed systems through food webs. A recent survey by the "weeds group" of the British Crop Protection Council demonstrated the limited capability in weed science left in the UK. I am aware of only four active weed scientists in the UK public sector.

Alternatives to agrochemicals for pest and disease control of major crops

  5.  Research to reduce reliance on pesticides includes: exploitation of pest and disease resistance, biological control using "natural enemies" and use of natural behaviour-influencing chemicals (semiochemicals). These forms of control are part of integrated crop management (ICM). This is an area of research where Rothamsted Research has strategically deployed BBSRC funding to back Defra policy-lead funding. Practical delivery of outcomes from this work requires an interface with agricultural practice/policy (eg habitat management, computer-based decision support systems etc) rather than simply through introduction of new products. Severe erosion of Defra funding has resulted in loss of a significant volume of research addressing practical pest and disease problems facing UK agriculture and, consequently, past up-stream investment is less likely to reach the point of application.

Environmental fate and behaviour of pesticides

  6.  There were formerly two Defra-supported UK groups studying the physical chemistry and biology of the fate and behaviour of soil-applied pesticides in the environment. One of these was at Rothamsted Research. Both groups were recognised as internationally leading in the field and produced much of the work on which regulators and the commercial sector based decisions. Funding from Defra (PSD) ceased completely and the RRes group was disbanded in 2005.

Crop agronomy and nutrition

  7.  The last research agronomist in Rothamsted Research will leave at the end of 2006 on redundancy terms. There is no longer any funding to support strategic or applied research in crop agronomy and nutrition. Nevertheless, RRes was able to respond to Defra's requirement for work (previously classified) on a highly sensitive project that examined the alternatives to amonium nitrate fertilizer for UK agriculture. This was due to the risk of ammonium nitrate fertilizer use in terrorism and the fact that, unlike many countries, UK agriculture uses ammonium nitrate as its primary sources of nitrogen. Removing the availability of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was apparently being actively considered with potential major commercial consequences and hence the need to examine alternatives

  Defra have recently made a press release and the link to this is below.

  http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/061004a.htm

  Despite severely eroded expertise in this area, it is another example, which cannot be publicised, of where capability and facility residing in a BBSRC institute was drawn on in the national interest, at short notice, despite the fact that Defra had for some time been disinterested in sustaining the expertise.

HONEY BEE PATHOLOGY

  8.  Defra funding used to support one of the foremost groups internationally studying the cause and control of virus diseases of honey bees. The group leader was made redundant due to loss of Defra support for the work in 2005.  This drew immediate and incredulous response from overseas bee scientists who could not understand why work of such relevance and high quality had been stopped. There is no longer any credible capability in honey-bee pathology in the UK.

Soil processes and environmental protection

  9.  Defra recognise soils as a key natural resource but do not seem to want to fund research on even key environmental issues such as phosphate leaching. Most of the soil science now being funded by Defra is short-term, piecemeal and is largely unconnected to crop nutrition (see above). A current concern relates to strategically important long-term studies on the effects of application of sewage sludge to agricultural land. There are 13 experiments run on nine sites and we are entering Phase 4 of a long-term study that is of critical importance in relation to the safety of waste recycling and soil sustainability (primarily due to heavy metal contamination).

  The funding comes from a consortium (UKWIR, EA, WAG, SEERAD and Defra) which allows plenty of scope for passing the blame. The bottom line is that there has been an interruption in funding and this has led to a skilled team at Rothamsted Research disintegrating. I quote from the group leader using initials for members of his team (I received this email just before attending the Inquiry):

"RH migrated (to another project) in August; CR took the money and got a job at the Open University in September; SJ decided to retire in December; AC is redundant in December and will go either to teach or to a job overseas. He does not trust the off/on nature of the future plans and decided he wants to get out/retrain before he gets too old.

The effects include that we have no-one doing microbiology in my group and maintaining the equipment and expertise, two few trained persons to operate the TOC analyser and one less for the new LC-ICP-MS. CG resigned and now we have no-one operating the ICP-MS. The latter will affect our ability to bid for new grants"

Is any Defra funded work safe?

  10.  I earnestly hope that I am wrong in my judgement, but the only Defra-funded research that I consider to be "safe" from short-termism and "off-on" support is work directed to:

—  Genetic improvement of crops for bioenergy.

—  Management of farmland biodiversity.

—  Control of fungal pathogens that produce mycotoxins.

November 2006