|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Secretariat
Apologies1. Apologies were received from Professor Diana Bowles, Professor Mick Crawley, Professor Philip Dale, Professor Howard Dalton, Professor Mike Gale, Professor John Gray and Revd. Professor Michael Reiss. 1. Chairman's opening remarks2. Sir David King welcomed Panel members and observers from the public to the ninth Science Review Panel meeting. Observers were invited to join the Panel for lunch. 3. The Chairman thanked those Panel members who had drafted contributions to the various meeting papers. 2. Minutes4. The minutes of the eighth meeting were confirmed as an accurate record. There were no matters arising. 3. Second Report structure (Paper SRP/P21)5. A proposed structure for the Second Report was agreed with the provision that the Executive Summary might be better, if it reflected the structure of the following chapters, rather than reflecting the structure of the First Report. Members felt that a decision would be made once the main body of the report was assembled. 4. Comments on the First Report (Paper SRP/P22)6. Discussion on comments relating to chapter 4 of the First Report (How reliable is GM plant breeding?) we deferred until a later date because of the absence of several Members with expertise in plant genetics and plant breeding. 7. Members suggested, and it was agreed, the Secretariat would lead in preparing a draft of the Second Report, and co-ordinate activity across the Panel. It was felt that, whilst focussing on critical comments, there should also be some acknowledgement of complimentary ones. Text would need to be easily related by the reader to the actual issues in the First Report and not just to the comments on the issues. 8. Panel members discussed a sample of the comments received on the First Report in some detail. The process will continue by email exchange and at the next meeting. 5. FSE results (Paper SRP/P23)9. A first draft was prepared by a member of the Panel based upon the discussion at the previous meeting. A second draft will be prepared taking into account points raised during the day's discussion. 6. New research (Paper SRP/P24)10. Panel members discussed the new research papers and agreed to contribute to redrafted text which they would pass to the Secretariat. Two new papers were identified for consideration. 7. Public debate report (Paper SRP/P25)11. A draft text on the significance of the GM public debate for the Science Review was discussed. It was felt that the Corr Willbourn material from the public debate had been used successfully to enable the public concerns to frame the Science Review. 12. In discussion, the Chairman emphasised the need to maintain focus on the Panel's science remit. It was agreed that the second report might say something about the importance of the effective communication of information to the public on crucial areas of science and the Panel's experience in doing this. 8. Any other business13. It was agreed, for the comments on Chapter 4 of the First Report (How reliable is GM plant breeding?), that Members should consider the relevant bullet points and Annex 1 in Paper SRP/P22 before sending their individual comments to the Secretariat, who might also ask specific Panel members for comments on particular aspects. 14. A member agreed to draft some text in response to the comments on the First Report that had been more about 'process' than interpretation of evidence. 18. Two further peer reviewed scientific papers were identified and it was agreed that two members will consider the significance of these for the Review and submit draft comments to the Panel. It was also agreed to draw a line and not consider any further new research papers. 9. Date and time of next meeting19. The tenth GM Science Review Panel meeting will be held at the Royal Institution of Great Britain from 10.15 am to 19.00 pm on 24 November 2003. GM Science Review Secretariat |
| |
| |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||