A recent SSA article asked why the UK’s world leading position in agriculture-related academic publications is not translating into farm-level productivity gains. The article pointed to outdated and inflated claims for economic and societal impact made by one of the UK’s leading crop science institutes as symptomatic of the problem, and of the failure to involve industry more closely in setting agriculture-related R&D funding priorities. The need for radical reform of the UK crop science sector was thrown into even sharper relief late last month with the shocking news that Rothamsted Research is to shed a quarter of its staff by November 2025 as part of a major re-structuring to contain costs. When two separate BBSRC reviews have concluded that the UK plant science base is failing to capitalise on its strengths in fundamental research because of the lack of a co-ordinated, functioning R&D pipeline to translate early-stage discoveries into products and technologies with farm-level application, what have UKRI and BBSRC been doing with this information? Have they been asleep at the wheel, and what can we learn from the way other countries organise and prioritise agriculture-related R&D, ask agribusiness consultant James Wallace and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.

 

James Wallace’s recent SSA article calling for a re-balancing of UK agri-science funding to focus more on much-needed farm-level productivity gains drew a strong response. Most were supportive, with many pointing out that they have been arguing the same for many years.

 

A small number reacted more defensively, asking why JIC had been singled out for criticism, and labelling the article ‘short-sighted’ and ‘industry-biased’.

 

To each of our critics we offered a right of reply, and promised that if anything in the article was factually inaccurate, we would correct it immediately. Science for Sustainable Agriculture is in the business of challenging misinformation, not creating it. No follow-up has (yet) been received.

 

But let’s be clear. Our aim in publishing the article was not to single out the John Innes Centre, but to use their claims for economic and societal impact as an illustration of the need for radical reform of the entire R&D ecosystem. 

 

In terms of research output, the article was clear that JIC is “renowned internationally for its high-quality science and league-topping performance in academic publications.”

 

But when UK productivity growth lags seriously behind other countries whose agricultural R&D is organised and prioritised differently, it seems a fair challenge to ask whether taxpayers’ money is being well-invested, as well as to query the basis for outdated, misappropriated or theoretical claims made for significant economic and societal impact. That a number of those claims have subsequently been qualified, or removed, would appear to support us in that view, and the John Innes Centre deserves credit for acknowledging that.

 

The central point in James Wallace’s article, asking why the UK’s world leading position in agriculture-related academic papers is not translating into farm-level impact, has been raised previously by a number of SSA contributors.

 

These include:

 

• former UK science minister George Freeman MP, who wrote:

 

“Britain has some of the most cutting edge, world-leading research taking place in research institutes and university departments across the country. But we need a clearer plan to unlock its potential, and to translate that fantastic science into on-farm innovation.”

 

 

• former NIAB CEO Professor Tina Barsby, who wrote:

 

“Why does UK leadership in academic science not translate into leadership in agricultural productivity growth, in which the UK continues to lag behind most other developed agricultural economies? And why has it not positioned the UK as a major destination for private sector investment in agricultural innovation – compared, for example, to Britain’s healthcare or medical life science sectors?”

 

 

• and Oxford University plant scientist Professor Jane Langdale, who led a review of UK plant science for BBSRC in 2021, who wrote:

 

“The review found that the lack of long-term strategic funding, from either public or private sector, to transfer early-stage genetic discoveries from lab to field to farm remains the one of the most significant barriers to future productivity gains. It is a simple case of market failure. The modest and relatively inelastic income from seed royalties limits commercial plant breeders’ ability to invest in more speculative or long-term targets. Because of this, and the lengthy timescales involved, the current system for financing near-market and translational R&D is not working, and opportunities to exploit major advances in our understanding of plant science are being lost.”

 

 

It seems equally reasonable to suggest that the UK Government should be reporting consistently on how public money has been invested in research, as well as the benefits accrued, based on (recent) past performance rather than on theoretical future projections.

 

These are, ultimately, questions for UKRI and BBSRC, in their overarching role as strategic planners and funders of agricultural research in the UK.

 

Striking the right balance between curiosity-driven research and the translation and practical application of new scientific knowledge is absolutely critical. That’s why we are so keen to stimulate and encourage evidence-based debate around these issues.

 

The urgency of the situation was thrown into even sharper relief immediately following the publication of James Wallace’s article, with the shocking news that Rothamsted Research, the UK’s 180-year old crop research station, is to shed a quarter of its staff by November 2025 as part of a major re-structuring to contain costs.

 

No matter how you dress the details up, these cutbacks will result in a serious weakening of the UK’s crop science capabilities.

 

Is Rothamsted destined to become yet another smaller research organisation, in an already over-crowded space, where a number of separate crop science organisations are operating, each with their own governance, executive management and overhead costs, many of them existing literally hand-to-mouth and without core funding, yet competing with each other for the same pots of R&D money?

 

So, alongside Rothamsted Research and the John Innes Centre, for example, we have The Sainsbury Laboratory, Niab, ADAS, Fera, BBRO, PGRO, Stockbridge Technology Centre, SRUC, James Hutton Institute, Warwick Crop Centre and IBERS.

 

That’s not even counting the university departments and agricultural colleges also carrying out applied and translational crop research.

 

And the now combined UK Agri-Tech Centre, a vestige of the Agri-Tech Strategy, which does not carry out research in its own right, but adds yet another layer of complexity and potential duplication to the picture.       

 

Looking elsewhere suggests that integrating and co-ordinating agricultural R&D to achieve scale and efficiency delivers the best outcomes in terms of farm-level impact, for example Embrapa in Brazil, Wageningen in the Netherlands, CSIRO in Australia and Plant & Food Research in New Zealand.

 

These organisations also foster closer collaboration with their food and farming industries to ensure R&D investment is focused not only on advancing scientific knowledge, but also on understanding how new discoveries can best be translated into commercially relevant outcomes.  

 

It is staggering that Professor Langdale’s report in 2021 reached a similar conclusion to a review of UK plant science for BBSRC led by Professor Chris Gilligan 17 years earlier, that the UK science base is failing to capitalise on its strengths in fundamental research because of the lack of a co-ordinated, functioning R&D pipeline to translate early-stage discoveries into breeding tools, products and technologies with farm-level application.

 

What have UKRI and BBSRC been doing with this information? Have they been asleep at the wheel?

 

The reality is that the UK crop science ecosystem is not only fragmented, it also lacks clear, long-term targets to frame the research agenda. And, critically, it lacks the co-ordination needed to avoid duplication of effort and resources, and to focus investment where it will deliver the greatest impact.

      

We have already recommended that the UK Government should develop a consistent approach to measuring and reporting on the economic and societal impact of R&D investment.

 

But much more pressing is the need to establish a functioning R&D pipeline for UK crop science, harnessing and co-ordinating the best available research skills and resources from early-stage discovery science all the way through its translation, application and extension into practical agriculture, including the precision agronomy, data science and decision support tools needed to optimise sustainable productivity gains at an individual farm level.

 

And there is a need to re-frame the agricultural research agenda to address the urgent challenge of producing ‘more from less’ – more food with fewer inputs, less greenhouse gas emissions and a reduced environmental impact. The APPG on Science & Technology in Agriculture’s 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda for UK Agriculture might be a good starting point.  

 

Imagine a future where researchers at the John Innes Centre can focus on their core strengths in advancing our fundamental scientific understanding of plant genetics and crop science, secure in the knowledge that a vibrant and co-ordinated R&D pipeline is in place, bringing together scientists, industry and Government, to harness and exploit the potential of that new knowledge in terms of economic and societal impact.

 

Now that really would be something.               

 

 

James Wallace is an independent agribusiness consultant. After graduating with a BSc in Agriculture at Edinburgh University and MSc from the London Business School, he has spent his career working in the UK seeds and plant breeding industry. He is a former board member of the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) and the Euroseeds Cereals Sector as well as serving on numerous industry advisory committees and working groups. He is a strong advocate of the improved sustainability, protein security and climate impact potential of increased investment and innovation in home-grown pulses such as peas and beans.      

 

Daniel Pearsall is an independent consultant specialising in communication and policy development in the farming, food chain and agri-science sectors. He runs a small livestock farm in Scotland. He co-ordinates the Science for Sustainable Agriculture initiative.