strategic research for seerad 2005 2010 environment biology and agriculture n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010 Environment, Biology and Agriculture

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010 Environment, Biology and Agriculture - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010 Environment, Biology and Agriculture. Overview. Review Process Strategy Outline Progress against targets Future plans. Review Process. Consultation Consideration Consolidation Consultation (again) Conclusion Publication. Vision.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Strategic Research for SEERAD 2005 – 2010 Environment, Biology and Agriculture' - dyre

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
  • Review Process
  • Strategy Outline
  • Progress against targets
  • Future plans
review process
Review Process
  • Consultation
  • Consideration
  • Consolidation
  • Consultation (again)
  • Conclusion
  • Publication
  • 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
  • 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
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
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
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
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
progress against targets1
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
progress against targets2
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 targets3
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
progress against targets4
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
progress against targets5
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
plans for 2006
Plans for 2006
  • Complete commissioning process
  • Assessment procedure
  • Centres of Excellence Awards
  • Environment and Health Package
centres of excellence awards
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
centres of excellence awards1
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.
environment and health package
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 package1
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
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
peer review of work packages 1
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
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.