Science Strategy

Background

Origin and Governance - The origin of Kew as a botanic garden can be traced to the 1750s when Princess Augusta embarked upon a decade of intense horticultural activity, culminating in the recruitment in 1759, of William Aiton who was tasked with 'cultivating and keeping in order our Physick Garden'. Aiton rose to become Head Gardener at Kew and was succeeded by his son W.T. Aiton.

Following the death in 1820 of George III and Sir Joseph Banks – two of Kew's most important early supporters – a Royal Commission was appointed in 1838 to make a recommendation as to the future of royal gardens. This resulted in the establishment of Kew as the National Botanical Garden. In 1841 W.T. Aiton handed over to W.J. Hooker, the first official Director of Kew, following the transfer of the Royal Garden to the Office of Woods and Forests. Subsequently, responsibility for Kew was transferred to the department of Works and Public Buildings and then, in 1903, to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the precursor of the present day Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

On 1 April 1984, Kew became a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), responsibility for which was vested in a Board of Trustees under the authority of the National Heritage Act of 1983 (Box 1). Thus Kew became an independent body while continuing to be financed largely by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), now Defra. Within the present structure of Defra, Kew reports to the Chief Scientific Adviser’s Group. Defra's main role as sponsoring department is to ensure that Kew has the resources to meet its statutory obligations, is accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds made available, and produces work of a high scientific quality which represents good value for money, in the context of Kew's general functions as expressed within the National Heritage Act.

 

Science Audits - The 2006 Science Audit is the fourth major review of Kew's scientific work since the organisation became an NDPB in 1984. Previous reviews took place in 1990, 1996 and 2001.

The terms of reference for the 2006 Science Audit, which have been agreed with the Board of Trustees, the Chief Scientific Adviser at Defra and the Chair of the Science Audit Team are provided in Appendix 1.  The timetable for the Science Audit is given in Appendix 2.

In preparation for the 2001 Science Audit, and with the encouragement of the Board of Trustees, the newly appointed Director, Professor Peter R. Crane, initiated a major inventory and review of current scientific activities and outputs across all Kew's science departments in early 2000. This document is a product of that process which culminated in the Science Strategy presented to and endorsed by the Science Audit Team in March 2001.  The institutional level strategy document has undergone minor revisions and updates in the intervening period and, most recently, the cross-departmental science teams most active in delivery of the strategy have undertaken a major revision and update of their team strategies and plans.  They have also documented the many science and conservation projects in which they are involved.  The resulting outputs serve a dual purpose, providing the background documentation for the 2006 Science Audit Team and also forming the core of the Science Directory, a series of webpages via which Kew’s science will be presented to an external audience in a comprehensive way later in 2006. 

 

Statutory Obligations – Kew's statutory obligations must be the starting point for any consideration of the future Science Strategy. These are outlined in broad terms by the National Heritage Act of 1983. The Trustees are responsible for interpreting the terms of this Act of Parliament (see Box 1) so as to provide a clear focus for Kew and to determine the appropriate balance of its activities in fulfilling the functions required by the Act. In this, the Trustees are advised by the Director and guided by their understanding of the national and international context in which Kew operates.

 *****************************************************

Box 1 – Statutory Obligations of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, under the National Heritage Act, 1983.

Under the terms of the Act the Board shall:

      ·    carry out investigation and research into the science of plants and related subjects and disseminate the results;

      ·    provide advice, instruction and education in relation to the aspects of botany in which we are involved;

      ·    provide other plant related services including quarantine;

      ·    care for the collections;

      ·    keep the collections secure as national reference collections, allow access to them and supplement them as resources allow;

      ·    allow public access for the purposes of gaining knowledge and enjoyment.

 ******************************************************

 

Relation to Priorities of UK Government - The Board and the Director have considerable latitude in the development of Kew's Science Strategy, but this must be influenced also by the domestic and international policy initiatives of the UK Government, and by international conventions to which the UK Government is a signatory. The institution must also be responsive to the great variety of non-science initiatives that are identified as Government priorities.  These policies and initiatives cover a very broad front.  They include, for example:

e.g. Data Protection Act 1998 (see www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980029.htm); Freedom of Information Act 2000 (see www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/20000036.htm);

e.g. Public Accountability, Governance and Audit Issues; Standards in Public Life (see www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/parlment/nolan/nolan.htm);

e.g. Securing the Future – UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy (see www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/uk-strategy/index.htm); Environmental Management (see www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/inbrief.html)

e.g. Gershon Review of Public Sector Efficiency: Releasing Resources for the Frontline (see www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/ associated_documents/spending_sr04_efficiency.cfm); 2004 Spending Review: Stability, Security and Opportunity for All (see www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/ spend_sr04/report/spend_sr04_repindex.cfm); zero-based reviews of baseline expenditure (see www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/20F/14/bud06_ch6_135.pdf)

e.g. EU Working Time Directive and UK Working Time Regulations (see www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19981833.htm); Investors in People (see www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/IIP/Web/default.htm); Human Rights Act (see www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm);

e.g. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (see www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm); Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 (see www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/19990017.htm); E-government: Transformational Government, Enabled by Shared Technology (see www.cio.gov.uk/documents/pdf/transgov/transgov-strategy.pdf)

e.g. Tackling Social Exclusion (see http://www.socialexclusion.gov.uk/news.asp?id=686)

e.g. Better Policy Making 2001 (see www.policyhub.gov.uk/docs/betterpolicymaking.pdf); Evidence Based Policy Making (see www.defra.gov.uk/science/how/evidence.htm) 

 

Other UK Initiatives – Several other UK Government Initiatives are of particular relevance to the development of Kew's Science Strategy.   For example, these include initiatives on:

e.g. Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 (see www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/ associated_documents/spending_sr04_science.cfm);

Defra’s Evidence and Innovation Strategy (see www.defra.gov.uk/science/how/strategy.htm);

Investing in Innovation (see www.ost.gov.uk/policy/science_strategy.pdf)

e.g. Biodiversity Strategy for England: Working with the Grain of Nature (see www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/biodiversity/biostrat/index.htm); UK Biodiversity Action Plan (see www.ukbap.org.uk/); Plant Diversity Challenge (see www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2494)

e.g. Darwin Initiative (see www.darwin.gov.uk/about/); Commission for Africa (see www.commissionforafrica.org/ english/report/introduction.html); DfID’s Sustainable Development Action Plan (see www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/sustainable-development-plan05.pdf);  Science and International Development (see www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ researchframework/research-framework-2005.pdf); cited above but also relevant here is: Securing the Future – UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy (see www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ publications/uk-strategy/index.htm)

e.g. Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners: Putting People at the Heart of Public Services (see www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/5yearstrategy/)

 

 

International Conventions and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to which the UK Government is party - As an NDPB with significant international programmes Kew must operate within the framework of the many environmental conventions and agreements to which the UK Government is a signatory. Several of these so called MEAs have implications for the development of Kew's Science Strategy, including those on:

With respect to Kew's focus on plant diversity, the Convention on Biological Diversity and related legal and policy issues are especially significant.

 

Convention on Biological Diversity - The objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are "the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources". The CBD is the first global, comprehensive agreement to address all aspects of biological diversity: genetic resources, species, and ecosystems. The convention recognises that the conservation of biological diversity is "a common concern of humankind" and of utmost importance in community development.

To achieve its objectives, the Convention - in accordance with the spirit of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - promotes a renewed partnership among countries. Its provisions on scientific and technical cooperation, access to genetic resources, and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, form the foundations of this partnership. From the outset, Kew has sought to promote best practice in relation to the CBD, particularly its provisions on access and benefit-sharing (see International Conventions and UK Government Policy).

More recently, Kew, with others, contributed to the development of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) and its adoption by the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP VI).  The importance of the GSPC to Kew cannot be overstated: it has provided welcome recognition of the importance of documenting and understanding plant diversity in order to enable and monitor conservation action and of the links between in situ and ex situ conservation. It has also helped to focus the attention of many stakeholders on relevant endeavours to which Kew was already committed, thus facilitating new and extended partnerships to achieve the common goals defined in the 16 GSPC targets for 2010.  The subsequent adoption by the CBD of the target to achieve ‘a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010’ has fuelled much debate in the scientific  and conservation community about measuring biodiversity, and Kew has played an active role in these discussions.

At the same time, implementation of the CBD has had significant implications for the practicalities of working on plant diversity overseas. In some cases the CBD has introduced significant new complexities to which Kew and its overseas partners have sought to respond. This evolving situation must be taken into account in the continuing development of Kew's Science Strategy.

 

Law and Policy - The growing concern over sustainable development is reflected by international agreements such as CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Desertification Convention, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Agenda 21. These international agreements, together with others on intellectual property rights, are now being implemented through a growing number of national laws in the countries where Kew works, and this will inevitably influence the priorities of the UK Government and our partners overseas. Kew’s Science Strategy must respond to these influences, which affect not only Kew's work but the work of all Kew partners.

 

Major International Trends Relevant to Kew's activities – Kew's scientific activities are also influenced by several major and interrelated international trends that need to be taken into account in planning for the future.

Growing concern over sustainable development - The Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992 was a pivotal moment in the trend toward increased public concern over environmental issues. These issues came to the fore during the 1950s and 1960s with the passage of key environmental legislation and have continued to gather force ever since. The Rio Summit crystallised many of these concerns, especially in relation to biological diversity. It was also instrumental in further highlighting environmental issues and the urgency with which they require attention.

A decade later, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 attempted to reinvigorate political commitment to sustainable development, with a focus on partnership initiatives to achieve measurable results to improve people’s lives around the world.  The implementation plan adopted at the close of the Johannesburg Summit focused on Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity, including agreement to adopt the CBD’s 2010 target.  The prominence of environmental issues in the public's mind continues to be fuelled by regular media reports of environmental disasters and loss of biodiversity around the globe. This public awareness is important in terms of underlining the relevance of institutions and organisations concerned with biological diversity issues and with tackling environmental problems. 

 

Poverty Alleviation - World leaders present at  the United Nations Millennium Summit 2000, agreed to a set of time-bound and measurable goals and targets for combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women.  First among these Millennium Development Goals for 2015 was to halve extreme poverty and hunger.  The first years of the new millennium were characterised by a growing awareness among the citizens of the developed world of the extent and severity of poverty in the developing world.  This culminated in 2005 in unprecedented, large-scale civil society campaigns calling for trade justice, increased development aid and debt cancellation.  The same year saw the results of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, designed to gather and interpret scientific information concerning the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and options for responding to those changes.  A key conclusion is that the degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.  The concept of managing ecosystems to fight poverty is becoming increasingly familiar to politicians, businesses and NGOs, along with an understanding of the societal relevance of the study of biodiversity.

 

Climate Change - There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that human actions are changing the global climate through the emission of greenhouse gases.  The projected temperature increases of 1.4-5.8°C over the next century are likely to result in an increased frequency of extreme weather events and the detrimental impacts of climate change on the natural world and human society are anticipated to become increasingly severe.  Environments that are already marginal for human occupation will be among those most severely affected.  Institutions concerned with documenting and conserving biodiversity on an international scale will have a role to play in mitigation and adaptation. 

 

Globalisation - The increasing influence of trans-national corporations is having a profound influence on international economies. The potential advantages of globalisation in terms of coordinated responses to global concerns, and skill- and technology-transfer to developing countries are clear.  Nevertheless, globalisation remains controversial as, in many cases, the benefits for the population in the developing parts of the world have not yet been realised. The 2001 White Paper on Development made two key policy commitments: that the UK government will work with others to manage globalisation so that poverty is systematically reduced and the International Development Targets are achieved; and to promote economic growth that is equitable and environmentally sustainable.  These objectives clearly have implications for future strategies to understand, conserve and restore biological diversity.

 

Increasing legal and policy formulation at the European level - Many legal and policy issues that have a direct bearing on Kew's scientific work are increasingly formulated at a european level as a result of the UK's membership of the European Union (EU). The EU is a regional economic integration organisation which from 2007/08 will include 27 member states. Both environment and external relations are treated in the EU as areas of shared competence. Members are free to adopt legislation in the absence of joint controls, but when joint controls are in place they are supreme and binding. For example the Wildlife and Countryside Act is UK national law and only binding in the UK, whereas the Habitats Directive is community-wide but must be applied through individual national laws. The EU Wildlife Trade Regulations which implement Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) are binding and directly applicable in all member states. The EU is also a party to conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

 

Increased capability and utilisation of genetic technology - Rapid advances in knowledge of plant genomes, and the capacity to manipulate them, has created enormous potential for engineering new traits into economically important plants with a speed, level of sophistication and impact greatly exceeding that of traditional plant breeding. Such technology has already been used in many parts of the world. However, while genetic technology offers many potential advantages it also has associated risks and has become the object of considerable public concern. Future applications of genetic manipulation in plants have relevance for Kew's work, both in terms of the rationale for conserving plant species, and the practicalities of maintaining genetic diversity in some plant species.

 

Emergence of the knowledge economy - Increasingly, knowledge and information are becoming the currency on which major parts of the world's economy operate. The explosion of information-based companies operating on the Internet, and the considerable impact that they are having on national and international economies, is evidence of this. Telecommunications, electronics, biotechnology and financial markets all involve trading products where knowledge, rather than material resources, is the most important input. In these circumstances, the ability to add value through expertise is often the basis of competitive advantage. This trend may influence the kind of products Kew should produce and the desire of Kew’s partners to be involved in joint research that generates knowledge and adds value.

 

Exercise of sovereign rights over natural resources - Many countries are increasingly endeavouring to control access to and the use of their national patrimony, especially in relation to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. This concern is reflected by the CBD (see above) which reaffirms that national authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with governments. The CBD also seeks to promote fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic resources.

 

Growing concern over protection of intellectual property rights - In the light of the emerging knowledge economy and the increasing exercise of national sovereignty over natural resources, Kew must give careful consideration to the matter of managing its intellectual property rights, while also recognising and respecting the need for prior informed consent, and the imperative of sharing benefits with its partners fairly and equitably.

The widespread use of powerful new computer technologies for data acquisition, storage and communication mean that Kew scientists and their collaborators worldwide, are generating, preserving and distributing more data than ever before. Furthermore, growing environmental concerns and increasingly powerful analytical techniques mean that our data are now of great interest and potential value to users in other research areas and elsewhere. Full and open exchange of information remains a basic principle of science, but we must balance this ideal against the need to retain control over the data we generate, both to ensure correct attribution and credit for what we produce, and also to safeguard its potential as a source of revenue – for ourselves and our partners – now and in the future.