Science quality and evaluation

The main objective of this activity is to ensure that research carried out in Welfare Quality (WQ) is of high quality, that it is timely and relevant, and that it receives broad support from all stakeholders, including academics. The activity is sub-divided into 4 main tasks: 1) to evaluate the scientific output (e.g. reports) and input (e.g. proposals); 2) to assist in the coordination and integration of scientific output; 3) to provide arbitration in instances of scientific dispute; 4) to provide effective editing, when necessary, of documents, reports and letters intended for internal and external dissemination. This activity continues throughout the lifetime of the project.

Two advisory bodies have been established to assist in the evaluation of our science, though the Steering Committee will make the final and binding decisions. The Advisory Committee (AC) consists of 8 stakeholder representatives from government, welfare, consumer, producer and retailer organizations. It was established 5 months and its role is to ensure that our research is timely, clearly described, and that it matches the priorities of the food quality & safety programme. The AC has already been called into action to evaluate a draft proposal of welfare measures.  The Scientific Board (SB) comprises 6 leading academics whose collective expertise covers most facets of the project; other experts may be called upon as the project evolves. They will ensure that the scientific and technical content of reports and proposals is of high quality. Individual member will primarily evaluate those documents that are closest to his or her field(s) of expertise. Important evaluation criteria are listed on the WQ website.

The establishment of the AC and the SB realised 2 major milestones. Current members and their affiliations are shown below. All have signed confidentiality agreements to ensure non-disclosure of information.

The arbitration activity will ease the internal operation of WQ by helping to solve any disputes that may arise. Guidelines, or codes of practice, for authorship and for scientific disputes have been agreed upon and placed on the webtool, thereby providing one of the listed deliverables. The document describes the factors that should be taken into account when deciding, for example, if authorship is merited, and what the order of authors should be. It also provides guidelines for acknowledgements, and emphasises that acknowledgement of the EU is mandatory in all WQ publications. Disputes should ideally be dealt with within research teams, but if resolution cannot be achieved the Steering Committee will be the final arbiter.
 
The scientific editing desk has been established, thereby achieving another deliverable. It helps to edit material intended for internal and external dissemination in order to ensure clarity, consistency, correctness and high quality.

Membership of the Advisory Committee:
Dr David Wilson: International Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
Dr Sonja van Tichelen: Eurogroup for Animal Welfare (EUROGROUP)
Professor Peter Sandoe: European Society for Agricultural Ethics
Professor Jan Daelemans: European Pig Producers Group
Mr Per-Ake Sahlberg: European Dairy Farmers Group
Mrs A l’Hirondel / Mr F Montanari: European Community of Consumer Cooperatives (COOP)
Dr Cliff Nixey: European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders (EFFAB)
Dr Nigel Garbutt: Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture (EUREPGAP)
Dr Andrea Gavinelli  (EC Directorate for General Health & Consumer Protection) will act as an ‘Observer’ at meetings of the Advisory Committee.

Membership of the Scientific Board:
Prof Joy Mench: University of California at Davis, USA
Prof David Fraser, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Prof Lindsay Matthews, Agricultural Research Center, NZ
Prof David Morton, University of Birmingham, UK
Prof Alan Warde, University of Manchester, UK
Prof Lawrence Busch, Michigan State University, USA

Bryan Jones

Roslin Institute, United Kingdom