Founded in 1994 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council is part of UK Research and Innovation, is a non-departmental public body, and is the largest UK public funder of non-medical bioscience which includes genetically modified foods. It predominantly funds scientific research institutes and university research departments in the UK.

The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) is one of seven Research Councils that work together as Research Councils UK (RCUK). BBSRC invests in world-class bioscience research, with the goal of tackling major challenges such as lessening the impact of climate change, achieving a healthier old age, and making our food and energy production sustainable. Professor Melanie Welham, BBSRC’s Interim Chief Executive, gives us insight into the organisation, and describes the ways in which it supports and promotes biological sciences in the UK and further afield.

BBSRC was formed in 1994 and for over 20 years has been investing in biological and biotechnology-focused research and innovation. Our Royal Charter defines three key objectives for BBSRC: to promote and support bioscience research and post-graduate training, to advance knowledge and technology to meet the needs of users for economic and societal benefit and to promote dissemination of knowledge and public understanding of biological science research. The bioscience we invest in spans plants, animals, microbes and humans, and we seek to fund the best research in the UK. One of our key aims is to support the UK bioscience research base so that it retains its world-leading status. What would you say are the guiding principles by which BBSRC is able to promote and support scientific research?

We are very clear – a key principle is to fund excellent bioscience research which has the potential, in the longer term, to have an impact – be this creation of new knowledge or translation of new discoveries so that they bring benefits to the people and economy of the UK.

What are the greatest challenges that currently shape the UK’s research agenda?

BBSRC seeks to invest in excellent frontier bioscience across our remit. Within this, and in close consultation with experts across our research community, BBSRC has identified a number of grand challenges that form our strategic research priorities. These are: Agriculture and Food Security – producing sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet the demands of a growing global population using fewer resources; Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy – seeking to harness the power of biological systems to generate renewable supplies of energy, materials and fine chemicals; Bioscience for Health – helping the UK population to live healthier lives for longer, and Exploiting New Ways of Working – enabling researchers in the UK to be early adopters and developers of new approaches and technologies, as we did in the early days of genome sequencing.

In order to address these challenges, how does BBSRC, along with the rest of RCUK, promote cooperation between researchers across different disciplines and from different institutions?

All of the Research Councils recognise the importance of interdisciplinary research and are proactive in supporting research across disciplines. We often partner with other Research Councils THE BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL to promote cooperation, for example the establishment of six multidisciplinary Synthetic Biology Research Centres, jointly supported by BBSRC, EPSRC and MRC and the Global Food Security programme, which not only involves Research Councils but also other Government departments. We also have a cross-council funding agreement that facilitates cross-council support of research applications that come in to us in responsive mode competitions.

Does BBSRC support international collaboration? What funding is available to promote research that might not be entirely UK based?

BBSRC is a strong advocate for international collaboration and we work closely with a number of international partners to support collaboration. A variety of funding opportunities are available, from small-scale international partnering awards that enable scientific exchange through to jointly funded research programmes, such as Lead agency agreements with the US National Science Foundation, Science Foundation Ireland and the Brazilian agency FAPESP. The Newton Fund supports research which primarily benefits developing countries and provides funding for joint collaborative programmes with 15 countries on the DAC list. We are also partners in many European funding schemes.

What are the main routes by which UK research receives BBSRC funding?

We operate a number of schemes through which researchers in UK universities and institutes can apply for funding to support their research. Our largest scheme allows researchers to submit their best ideas for research to us and these can be in any area of our remit – it is very much bottom-up researcher-led. We also have funding calls in specific areas related to our strategic priorities of Agriculture and Food Security, Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy, Bioscience for Health and Exploiting New Ways of Working. Often we will work in partnership with others, including research councils (e.g. Synthetic Biology Research Centres with EPSRC and MRC), Innovate UK (e.g. Agritech and Industrial Biotechnology Catalysts) and Industry (e.g. Research Industry Clubs), as well as with International Partners.

Considering the great range, and variety, of biological and biotechnological research that is undertaken in this country, how does the BBSRC ensure that the available funds are best allocated?

We seek to invest in excellent research wherever it is located in the UK and expert peer review is critical to achieving this. We assess all applications submitted to us using expert reviewers from across the research community (national and international scientists) and assessment panels then meet to discuss the applications, determine those of highest priority for funding and make recommendations to BBSRC on which should be funded. Involvement of the scientific community in peer-review is essential.

In the past you have worked upon BBSRC funded projects. Can you tell you tell us how that period influenced your own research career?

I have been very fortunate to have received support from a number of different funders during my research career. The award of a BBSRC Research Development Fellowship (2003-2006) had one of the biggest influences on my career. In essence, this Fellowship allowed me to focus all of my efforts on research as it allowed my university to employ someone to cover my teaching and administrative duties.

I was able to shift the focus of my research from investigating the processes controlling the behaviour of white blood cells to understanding how signals controlled the characteristics and behaviour of stem cells – embryonic stem cells became a particular focus. As a consequence of this fellowship my research team became focused on stem cell biology, which led to involvement in a largescale European project as well as working as part of a public-private-partnership research consortia seeking to generate functional liver cells from embryonic stem cells.

‘A key principle is to fund excellent bioscience research which has the potential, in the longer term, to have an impact’

Please tell us a little about the BBSRC’s position on public engagement and knowledge dissemination?

Public engagement and science communication are important and we encourage our researchers to talk openly about their research and findings, processes and implications. For science to be useful and valued it needs to be an integral part of society – this means that as scientists we have a responsibility not only to tell people about our work but also to discuss and listen to others’ views on our work and aspirations.

You have personally been involved in BBSRC outreach activities. Can you please tell us about your views upon the value of direct engagement with UK universities and research institutes?

Engagement with UK Universities and research institutes is vital for a number of reasons. First, it provides an opportunity to learn about the outcomes of the investments we have made in different areas of research. Secondly, we listen to concerns from our community – it is important that we work together to make a strong bioscience research base in the UK. Third, community engagement helps Universities and Institutes understand the influences on BBSRC as an investor of public funds as this carries with it very important responsibilities.

Finally, can you please share your thoughts on the future of biology and biotechnology in the UK, and the ongoing role of the BBSRC in that future?

There has never been a more exciting time! UK bioscience is world-leading and we have a real opportunity to expand the contribution that the Bioeconomy makes to the UK, improving the wellbeing of society and benefitting the wider economy. ¹⁾

==== Billion Plus Taxpayer Grant Funding ==== BBSRC has 2,318 current awards with a total value of £1,672,863,448. Portfolio Analyser was last updated on 10 August 2022 ^{2) 3)}

Lobbywatch Feb 19, 2004

There is no doubt that the Government's official public debate on GM crops, involving 650 meetings and responses from 37,000 people, had considerable flaws and was seriously under-resourced, as the study below says.

The blame for this can be squarely laid at the door of the Government - ultimately, this was about making a gesture towards public involvement that the Government had no intention of allowing to guide its decision making.

When Mrs Beckett announced the 'public debate' on whether to commercialise GM crops, a senior official in her own department admitted the real intention was that the 'debate' and its surrounding economic and science strands would serve as a PR vehicle for dispelling 'the myths that GM crops damage health and the environment'. A government minister also privately acknowledged that the decision to grow the crops had already been taken!

The report, however, fails to clarify the source of the problems with the debate, but rather attacks its unwelcome finding of overwhelming opposition to GM crops. The report claims that the opposition to GM crops was over-represented in the report. Its basis for doing so appears largely to be an opinion poll it commissioned! Yet there is plenty of other opinion poll evidence that tallies well with the official public debate findings.

The involvement in this research of the GM-friendly, BBSRC-funded Institute of Food Research (IFR) - a sister organisation on the Norwich Research Park of the pro-biotech John Innes Centre - also has to be a serious cause of concern with regard to the claims in this report. Those claims will, of course, be music to the ears of the Government and the biotech industry.

As Karly Graham says in the article below, “I don't think the public's worry about GM can be overestimated. British people have already voted with their feet by refusing to buy GM products and supermarkets have taken the commercial decision not to stock food made with it – I don't think they would do that if people were happy to buy it.”

For more on the IFR, JIC and BBSRC, see The Biotech brigade directory at www.gmwatch.org

1.Debates on GM are criticised EDP, 19 February 2004 TARA GREAVES

Last summer's government-sponsored debates on GM crops are criticised today in a new report by Norfolk researchers, which also claims public fears have been overestimated.

The GM Nation? debates – several of which took place in East Anglia – are said to have been under-resourced in terms of money, time and expertise.

A team of independent academic researchers, including a group from the University of East Anglia in Norwich and the Institute of Food Research at Colney, is behind the new report.

It comes as the Government moves towards a decision about whether genetically modified crops should be grown commercially in Britain.

But while anti-GM campaigners in Norfolk agree the debates failed to engage the public, they strongly dispute other findings. Karly Graham, who organised a public meeting at Lyng, near Dereham, after finding out a trial of GM maize had been planted nearby, told the EDP: Nicole Cook, who organised a well-attended debate in Diss, added: “I've never found a great deal of support above and beyond that of some of those in the farming world or scientists.”

Prof Nick Pidgeon, from the UEA, said: “The results of our survey broadly mirror a number of the key conclusions of the debate steering board, particularly regarding the widespread levels of concern across Britain about the risks of this technology and the need for independent regulation of the technology.

“However, our results also show that the extent of outright opposition to GM food and crops among the British population is probably lower than indicated in many of the GM Nation? findings.”

The evaluation team found 36pc opposition to GM, 13pc in support and 39pc undecided. —

2.GM Crops Opposition May Have Been 'Over-Estimated' By Gavin Cordon, Whitehall Editor, PA News http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2548778

The Government’s consultation exercise on genetically-modified (GM) crops may have seriously over-estimated the scale of public opposition, according to an independent report published today.

The official report on the GM Nation exercise, conducted last summer, concluded that more than four out of five people were against GM crops and that just 2% would be prepared to eat GM foods.

But a team of academics from Cardiff University, the University of East Anglia and the Institute of Food Research, said the project had been and “flawed in a number of important respects”.

It said that its own findings suggested that many people had yet to make up their minds about GM crops.

A Mori poll for the UEA found that while 36% opposed GM food, 13% supported it and 39% were neither for or against.

Although 85% agreed that not enough was known about the long-term effects on health of GM food, 45% thought GM crops could hold future benefits for consumers and 56% thought they could help developing nations.

“The results of our survey provide important complementary evidence suggesting that current UK ‘public opinion’ is not a unitary whole, but fragmented with considerable ambivalence co-existing alongside outright opposition,” the report said.

The report also said that the GM Nation exercise – which involved public meetings around the country – may have been damaged by the Government’s own actions.

“We note that, whilst a difficult matter to judge, many actions and statements by Government around the time of the debate had the potential to undermine the credibility of the debate process,” it said.

“This effect may go some way towards explaining widespread cynicism among both participants and the wider public about the likely impact of the debate on Government policy.”

While the report praised the “innovative” nature of the project, it said that most of the aims and objectives had been “conceptually unclear” or difficult to measure “in any sensible manner”.

“In our view the production of the final report was over-hasty and under-resourced, and featured a methodologically worrying analysis of the debate’s findings,” it said.

The director of the research consortium which produced the report, Professor Nick Pidgeon, said that despite the problems with GM Nation project, their own findings broadly mirrored a number of its key conclusions – particularly on the need for independent regulation.

He added: “However, our results also show that the extent of outright opposition to GM food and crops amongst the British population is probably lower than indicated in many of the GM Nation findings”.

Mori interviewed 1,363 people aged 15 and over between July 19 and September 12 last year.

—

“Why is the Government going ahead? It is not because of the science, it is because of the Bush administration applying pressure, and because of companies like Monsanto who want to make a big profit bonanza out of cornering the world food supply. It is nothing to do with feeding the world.” - Michael Meacher ⁴⁾

GMWatch Published: 15 February 2004

This clean bill of health for the BBSRC has everything to do with the committee of MPs in question and not least its Chairman, Labour MP for Norwich North, Ian Gibson. Gibson is very close to the John Innes Centre, which is based in Norwich. The JIC, apart from receiving sizeable funding from the BBSRC is also the beneficiary of the largesse of Labour's Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury.

This cosy world goes to the very heart of what's so wrong with the BBSRC, which until just over a year ago was presided over by Peter Doyle, a director of biotech giant Syngenta and the former executive director of GM company Zeneca (now part of Syngenta). Doyle originally took up his BBSRC post while still Zeneca's executive director. Zeneca/Syngenta were for several years major investors in the JIC. Doyle is said to be a crony of Tony Blair's.

Doyle's replacement as Chief Executive at the BBSRC is Prof Julia Goodfellow. She's the wife of geneticist Dr Peter Goodfellow, who is head of discovery research at biotech/pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline. The last time we checked GlaxoSmithKline had 3 representatives sitting on BBSRC boards. They are far from the only representatives of large corporations on the boards of the BBSRC.

Syngenta sits on 3 boards, AstraZeneca on 2, Pfizer on 4, and Unilever on 2. Also represented are Genetix plc, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme. In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that biotechnology has been swallowing up the lion’s share of the research funds.

Yet none of this seems to have raised any concerns among the commitee of MPS who only appear to want the BBSRC to do a better job of winning public acceptance for GM crops. ⁵⁾

GMWatch Published: 02 October 2008

NOTE: In the UK the industrial alignment of the biological sciences began with a political quest to make the primary focus of science its contribution to economic competitiveness.

The goal of building businesses from genetics was consequently made central to the corporate plan of the UK's public funding body for the bio-sciences - renamed (with appropriate emphasis) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

The BBSRC developed a strategy for integrating scientific opportunity with the needs of industry - a strategy overseen by a plethora of industry figures appointed to its boards.

To cap it all, Peter Doyle - a director of the GM giant Syngenta, was made the public funding body's chairman. Next as Chief Executive came Prof Julia Goodfellow, the wife of geneticist Dr Peter Goodfellow, head of discovery research at biotech/pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline.

At the time GlaxoSmithKline also had 3 represntatives sitting on BBSRC boards - a number matched by Syngenta. Unsurprisingly, biotechnology has been swallowing up the lion's share of the BBSRC's research funds for the biological sciences.

The new head of the BBSRC follows in this fine tradition.

EXTRACTS: There is also the sticky issue of how to improve the “economic impact” of the research the council funds - and how to convince BBSRC researchers to get on board with the government-driven agenda.

Professor Kell is a staunch supporter of genetically modified (GM) crops and defends their “public good” benefits. He said he was “totally outraged” that Howard Atkinson, the scientist at the University of Leeds who was carrying out the only university crop trial of GM in the country, had his crop destroyed by vandals. He champions the right of scientists to take forward legitimate scientific research without it being destroyed by those who he likened to terrorists.

He said: “We are not going to abandon research into genetically modified plants just because a few people who don't understand the social and economic agenda happen not to like them.” ⁶⁾

Published: 26 June 2021 Science funding body the BBSRC spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of British taxpayers' money on a failed project to genetically engineer wheat to enhance photosynthesis and thus increase yield.

For the project, which ran from 2016 to 2019, the BBSRC gave £695,933 of public money to researchers at the University of Essex led by Professor Christine Raines.

The field trial part of the project was carried out at Rothamsted Research.

The GM crop appeared to work in the greenhouse, but in common with countless other experimental GM crops, it failed in the field.

This fact is buried on a little known UK government website which includes a page about the project. Under the “outcomes” tab, this line appears: “Although glass house data provided evidence that the over expression of SBPase [a gene linked to leaf photosynthesis] would have a positive effect in the field - the field trial held at Rothamsted in 2019 showed no differences to wild type.”

The aim of the genetic modification was to increase the expression of the SBPase gene. The greenhouse “success” was promoted in a publication authored by Christine Raines and colleagues and published by the Royal Society, which began with the GMO industry trope that increased food production is needed “to meet the growing demand for food”.

Commenting on the failure of the enhanced photosynthesis wheat, molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou said, “This outcome is not at all surprising to me. Photosynthesis is a genetically complex trait; that is, it's a product of many genes working together in highly sophisticated, coordinated networks.

This failure shows just how much we still do not know about the intricacies of photosynthesis and that it cannot be enhanced by the reductionist approach of manipulating one or a few genes through genetic engineering. We need to accept the fact that each class of plant has optimised its photosynthetic process over millions of years of evolution and that it's naive to think we can improve on this using GM when we do not completely understand plant biochemistry and when there is a big risk of compromising other valuable traits.”

The inability of GM to deliver on this trait is not a problem. It is well known by experts outside of the GMO and Big Ag lobbies that food production emphatically does not need to increase in order to “feed the world”. The world is awash in surplus food – which, however, does not reach the hungry due to poverty and social inequities.

That's an issue that GM will never be able to address and that on the other hand, it could exacerbate, due to the high cost of GM seeds and technology. Another expensive failure

Dr Antoniou reminded us that this is not the first time he has warned about the futility of expensive GM techno-fixes in crops. In 2012 he commented on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation award of £6.4 million to the John Innes Centre to develop GM nitrogen-fixing cereals. Katherine Kahn of the Gates Foundation had told the Independent newspaper that the research had the potential “to transform the lives of small farmers” by “dramatically boosting the crop yields in Africa”.

But Dr Antoniou noted that the money would have been better spent on cheap agroecological practices (low-input, traditional, organic) that have the potential to meet global food needs and yield long-term food security. He said, “There are safer, proven technologies, so I'm afraid the Gateses have been grossly misled. GM has failed to deliver for farmers; it can only deliver commercial returns.”

Nine years on from the hype, this research has produced no commercialisable product.

Silence from Rothamsted

In contrast to the hype that Rothamsted generates around GM projects that are in the application stage – or that are still running and thus require continued funding – the institution kept silent on the abject failure of the GM “enhanced photosynthesis” wheat.

The fact that the crop had flopped only came to light as a result of research carried out for GM Freeze's submission to the UK government objecting to a new gene-edited GM wheat trial, which is also planned to be carried out at Rothamsted. GMWatch is a co-objector with GM Freeze to this trial. The trial is set to test gene-edited GM wheat intended to produce less of the carcinogen acrylamide when cooked at too-high temperatures, such as in burnt toast. GM Freeze commented that the GM wheat “appears to have been developed for those who are unable to use a toaster properly”. ⁷⁾

GMFreeze - Immediate release (26 Jan 2010)

The appointment of a GM scientist to the post of Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research [1] has been heavily criticized for sending out “a very clear and unfortunate message as to which direction the BBSRC wishes to take agricultural research and development in the future”.

Explaining their concerns Pete Riley of GM Freeze said, The appointment of Professor Moloney to this important post suggests that the BBSRC is pushing on with the strategy of putting GM and biotechnology at the forefront of agricultural research. This would be a mistake as GM technology is expensive, unproven and risky. Agroecology is already delivering results for small farmers in the South.

What is needed is more research and, critically, improved education services so that new agroecological techniques can be quickly applied by farmers over large areas. Rothamsted Research should place greater emphasis on agroecological research and development. They are in a great position to do so. We will be monitoring their research priorities and those of other BBSRC funded institutions to makes sure that agroecology gets a fair share of tax payers money. ⁸⁾

GMWatch Published: 02 March 2022

List of interests reads like Who's Who of the British biotechnology industry. Report: Claire Robinson

Today the UK Parliament's Delegated Legislation Committee debated the government's statutory instrument that lays the groundwork for deregulating the planting of GM crops for non-commercial purposes. Daniel Zeichner, the Shadow Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, voiced concerns about the instrument. He mentioned that several members of the government's GMO advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), have conflicts of interest with the biotechnology industry – the same industry that stands to benefit from the government's plan to weaken the rules around agricultural GMOs.

His assessment is backed by the startling results of our own analysis. They show that 100% of the members of ACRE have potential or actual conflicts of interest that may enable them to benefit from any weakening of the regulations around GMOs. In addition, in spite of ACRE's role in regulating environmental releases of GMOs, only one member of the ACRE panel has expertise in ecology and none appear to have expertise in environmental toxicology. What does ACRE do?

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) describes itself as “an independent Advisory Committee composed of leading scientists”. It gives “advice to ministers on the risks to human health and the environment from the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)”. These include plants, animals, microorganisms, and GMO medical applications, such as gene-based therapies and vaccines. ⁹⁾