Social Science Research Committee
Robyn Polisano
SSRC Secretariat
1C Aviation House
125 Kingsway
London WC2B 6NH
Tel: 020 7276 8773
Fax: 020 7276 8289
ssrc@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk
SSRC Minutes: 7 October 2010
Aviation House, 125 Kingsway London WC2B 6NH
In attendance:
Members:
Peter Jackson (Acting Chair)
Joy Dobbs
Benjamin Fine
Arthur Fleiss
Michael Howard
Ann Williams
Wendy Wills
Secretariat:
Siân Thomas (Secretary)
Derrick Jones
Jude Heller
Gerard Melder
Observers:
Anne Murcott (General Advisory Committee on Science member)
Jane Barrett (Nutrition Science and Delivery Team, Department of Health)
Alison Patterson (Nutrition Science and Delivery Team, Department of Health)
Helen Atkinson (Social Science Research Unit, FSA)
Sarah Mussell (Social Science Research Unit, FSA)
Kate Todd (Future of Meat Controls Programme)
Apologies:
Steven Cummins
Laura Willoughby
Open Meeting
Item 1: Welcome and introduction
1. Peter welcomed the SSRC members and observers. There were apologies from Laura Willoughby and Steve Cummins and no new declarations of interest. There was one item to be raised under Any Other Business: the Government Office for Science consultation on the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees (COPSAC).
2. Peter noted that in order to accommodate presenters' availability, agenda items 4 and 6 would be switched round, so the Food and You discussion would take place before lunch and the Meat Controls discussion after.
Item 2: Minutes of the previous meeting
3. There were no matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting. Peter confirmed that all the action points from the previous meeting had been completed.
Item 3: Updates from the SSRC Chair and secretary
4. Peter explained that the transfers of nutrition policy and its support functions took place on 1 October 2010. Ten posts in the Analysis and Research Division (ARD) transferred to Department of Health (DH), four of which were from the SSRU. The posts are Jane Barrett’s, Rachel Conner’s, Danielle De Feo’s and Alison Patterson’s.
5. Sian Thomas will be the SSRC’s secretary and she will be supported in that role by Derrick Jones, Chief Economist and Head of FSA’s Analysis and Research Division.
6. Former SSRC secretary Jane Barrett highlighted the key points from the update paper (SSRC/10/2/1) on the work of the SSRU since the last SSRC meeting in April 2010 (see paper SSRC 10/2/1). It was noted that there will be close working between social scientists that work on food in DH and those remaining at the Agency.
7. Peter updated the committee on his activities as acting chair. This included attending a sub-group meeting for Chairs of SACs that cover 'Social Science Research and Cross Cutting issues'.
8. Peter noted that a paper ‘Public attitudes and behaviour – the work of the Social Science Research Unit (SSRU)’ will be discussed at the Agency Board meeting on 12 October. Peter, Derrick Jones and Andrew Wadge will be present to present this and answer any questions that arise in the discussion.
Order Change Item 6: Food and You Survey (FIS) – proposed dissemination activity of wave 1 and update on wave 2
9. Alison Patterson (Department of Health) presented an update on the Food and You Survey formerly known as FIS (paper SSRC/10/2/4). Wave 1 is due to report in January 2011. The development work for wave 2 is well underway; questions are being drafted around two topics: perceptions of risk and influences on food choice. There was a brief discussion on funding and the frequency of future waves of the survey.
10. The discussion around the proposed dissemination strategy included the importance of communicating the survey findings to a range of audiences and prioritising different audiences and activities. In particular, the importance of external communications to demonstrate the value of the survey, such as: a mini conference, policy workshops, fact sheets, the FSA Chief Scientist’s blog. Members acknowledged that resource limitations will restrict dissemination activities and that the initial priority will be the policy makers who funded the survey, but felt that it was important that there was wider reach both nationally and internationally than currently outlined in the priorities identified in the paper (SSRC/10/2/4).
11. Committee members suggested various academic and association newsletters and electronic mailing lists that could be used to communicate findings from the survey with wider audiences.
Action: Members to email the SSRC inbox with suggestions of relevant newsletters and e-mail lists that could feature the survey findings. Any other comments or suggestions regarding FIS dissemination should also be emailed to the SSRC inbox by 12 November 2010.
Item 5: Science checklist - Does this work for Social Science evidence?
12. Wendy Wills presented paper SSRC/10/2/3 (co-authored with Steve Cummins). She highlighted that the checklist was simplistic and some issues were conflated. However, it was recognised that the checklist needed to be concise and user friendly so increased detail about social science methodologies needs to be carefully managed.
13. The committee debated the hierarchy of evidence and how qualitative evidence should be considered within the hierarchy. There was discussion about the purpose of the checklist and how to make it relevant to social science evidence as well as natural sciences.
14. The committee agreed that the checklist needed to deliver a simple guide to decision making and assist the FSA Board in assessing evidence. A flow chart, or simple checklist, with detail about social science methodologies contained in annexes, was suggested as an alternative.
Action: Any other ideas or comments from members about the checklist should be emailed to the SSRC inbox by 29 October 2010.
Action: Sian will find out the process for revising the checklist so the committee can make the most constructive input into this process
Order Change Item 4: Working Group on Meat Controls V recommendations
15. Ben Fine, leading the meat controls working group, presented paper SSRC/10/2/2, outlining recommendations for social science research. Ben explained that the current controls are historical and need updating. There are key issues around how to update and revise the controls managing these changes, in particular around food scares and the potential impact of changes. He also highlighted the broad range of stakeholders from EU member states, policy makers, to consumers, and meat inspectors and vets in slaughterhouses.
16. There was a discussion about what information/data is already available, what would be required and how it could be used eg the impact on risk of changes in the frequency of inspections could be useful stimulus material for reconvened groups. Other discussion points were around the importance of talking to individual stakeholder not just at the organisational level and comparative studies with other countries.
17. Kate Todd responded to questions about the information currently available and what else is being sought though other projects within the Future Meat Controls Programme.
18. The committee agreed with the broad recommendations for social science research in the paper (SSRC10/2/2) but highlighted the need to prioritise and to submit a bid for funding at FSA Evidence Priority Board for the next financial year.
Action: Sian and Kate to prepare business case for funding for the 2010/11 prioritisation round.
Item 7: Working across scientific advisory groups (SACs)
19. Peter Jackson and Sian Thomas led this discussion based on paper SSRC/10/2/5. The committee members discussed what could be done to encourage more cross-SAC working, how to better engage with other SACs and promote better informed collaborations.
20. It was agreed that the communication needed to be two-way and the secretariat needs more information about members’ subject areas of interest and expertise. This would enable the secretariat to identify the most appropriate committee member to ask for contributions to the work of other SACs.
21. Also discussed was the effectiveness of the monthly Update note in getting committee members involved in the work of other SACs. It was agreed that briefing members on the background/topic/project and what would be required of them, would encourage them to volunteer.
22. Observing other SAC meetings was one option for identifying cross-committee working opportunities. There may also be more of a role for the secretariats to liaise to identify common areas of interest/projects that would benefit from social science expertise. Maintaining and improving links with the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) in particular were discussed in light of the machinery of government changes.
Action: Secretariat to create skills and interests audit for the committee members to complete and identify opportunities for cross-committee working.
Action: members to complete the skills and interests audit.
Item 8: Date and location of next meeting
23. Members were asked to confirm their availability for Thursday 24 March 2011 at Aviation House. Peter will continue as acting Chair until an appointment has been made.
Action: members to confirm their availability for Thursday 24 March 2011.
Item 9: AOB and Chair’s closing remarks
24. Government Office for Science is holding a consultation on the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees (COPSAC). Peter wanted Members’ views on the consultation questions so that a formal SSRC response could be submitted.
25. The discussion included using this opportunity to highlight the importance of the independence of SACs, how to retain this independence and transparency, engaging with the scientific community, succession planning for recruiting new committee members, the importance of such advice in times of austerity and the value for money that such bodies offer.
Action: Sian and Peter to draft an SSRC response to the consultation.
26. Peter thanked the committee members for their attendance and input to the discussions.
Questions from observers
27. Anne Murcott commented about cross-committee working and the usefulness of observing other meetings (including FSA open Board meetings available online) in order to foster more collaborative working. The role of SSRC members as 'anthropologists at a World Bank meeting' (ie out of their comfort zone) was important to bring a social science perspective to different issues. Anne also mentioned recruiting new SSRC members with expertise in science and technology studies, and the links between risk assessment and risk management.
The Chair closed the meeting.
Minutes prepared by SSRC secretariat