AEBC 04/20A

 

RESEARCH AGENDAS WORKSTREAM: Plant Breeding Case Study

 

 

Note: this is a first, skeleton draft to provoke discussion only, based on initial information gathering and discussions with Members. Phil Dale published a paper last year [1] which has been particularly useful. This background information paper and Phil’s paper will provide a useful starting point for this case study. It will seek to explore how plant breeding research has changed over the years, what has driven these changes, and the nature and state of plant breeding research currently.

 

 

1) Background

1.      Plant breeding aims to improve crop performance or quality, or create a new variety altogether. As well as developing new varieties, plant breeders maintain the genetic purity of existing lines and pre-commercial seed to maintain the quality and performance of each variety. Preserving the identity of individual varieties has become more important; both to conserve quality characteristics and to meet consumer demands for assurances about the integrity and traceability of their food.

 

2.      The importance of plant breeding is recognised by the European Academies Science Advisory Council which recently stated that continued innovation is important in plant breeding because of the need to feed a growing population, to explore the chemical potential from plants, agricultural productivity applicable to local conditions, need for environmental sustainability etc[2]

 

3.      Developing a new variety is a long process, up to 12 years for a cereal variety from the first cross to the variety coming into the marketplace. It is even longer for some other crops, such as potato. Plant breeders therefore need to look ten years ahead to the potential needs of farmers, consumers and the environment as they start to create a new variety.

 

4.      This type of applied research also draws on basic plant science research including studies to help understand the ways in which plants grow, use water or are affected by diseases, for example.

 

5.      Plant breeding is an expensive operation with the cost of maintaining a typical wheat-breeding programme estimated at £1.5 million per year. Costs are increasing, as customer requirements become more demanding. The breeder’s return to fund the ongoing process of crop improvement is a royalty on seed sales. This is through Plant Breeders’ Rights which license the use of the breeders’ intellectual property, through seed production, allowing royalties to be collected on seed sold. For most crop species, royalty payments are collected by the British Society of Plant Breeders acting on breeders’ behalf.[3]

 

  1. Today, the majority of commercial plant breeding takes place within the private sector, with over 60 companies based in the UK. The plant breeding sector employs around 5000 people, and supports a further 5000 jobs in seed production and distribution. In 1990s more than twice the number of breeders in the commercial sector in the USA than in public[4]

 

  1. Plant breeding still continues in the public sector and all the major agricultural research funders in the UK have crop science strategies that are likely to include an element of breeding(?) Activities at JIC, Rothamsted, SCRI etc to be added  [DN - Need more information here]

 

 

2) Influences on plant breeding research over the years

  1. The amount and nature of plant breeding research has changed over time, partly reflecting general shifts in agricultural policy and the overall political climate. For example, in the early 20th Century and the years after the Second World War the main drive for agricultural research was domestic productivity and food security and this was carried out in the public sector. This focus gradually decreased as food surpluses became the norm. From the 1960s the commercial influence on agricultural research began to have an impact, especially on plant breeding, with the introduction of plant variety protection systems in 1964. This was complemented by trends in publicly-funded science more generally, including withdrawal from near-market research in the 1980s, and then the ‘Realising our Potential’ White Paper in 1993 which placed a strong emphasis on wealth creation.[5] There is now a move more generally in agricultural research towards greater sustainability and greater recognition of societal concerns.

 

  1. However, it seems that the major change in plant breeding research has been through the influence of the drive for wealth creation and the shift from public sector plant breeding activity to the private sector. This was partly ‘forced’ onto industry by Government’s decision to pull out of near-market research, but also by the private sector seeking to capitalise on new developments in biotechnology and the intellectual property system. [DN - need to add more information here]

 

 

3) PBI case study

  1. This shift from public to private sector activity is characterised in the history of the Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) in Cambridge.PBI was established in 1912 as a Cambridge university plant breeding institute by the Board of Agriculture. In 1954 a new PBI site opened which was independent of the University.  [DN - some background information on PBI to be worked up]:

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) Consequences of privatisation for PBI

11. The points noted below are taken from academic observations of the changes in research at PBI after its sale to Unilever. These are specific to the case of PBI, but its sale also had fundamental implications for the UK as it had been a major site of public sector plant breeding.

 

Links weakened between applied and basic scientists

12. PBI was unique in the UK and worldwide in combining strong R&D teams in both applied and basic work. Culture at PBI encouraged both formal and informal interactions between very different types of research staff and a more cross-disciplinary approach. At around the time of privatisation, science policy makers were advocating the establishment of research stations that adopted the PBI approach (Teich, 1996)[9] The privatisation of the applied research at PBI weakened the links between the molecular geneticists and plant breeders. This was recognised by both new organisations and the new PBIC hired some 25 new molecular scientists, and the Colney Laboratories tried to build stronger links with breeding companies.[10] 

 

Decision making structures for research priorities changed

13. Research decisions were primarily science based in PBI. The direction of research was determined by group meetings of officers responsible for the various departments, thus providing an opportunity for discussions between pure and applied scientists.[11] In the new PBIC decisions on research priorities involved finance and marketing teams, which changed the nature of the research conducted.

 

Refocus on profitability goals

14. After privatisation of PBI, the primary goal of research was essentially to produce profitable products. This meant that:

·        Research was aimed at broader international base, meaning less work primarily focused on UK agricultural needs[12]

·        Efficiency gains were likely to be made, as goals are simpler and operating in a competitive market.

·        Competitiveness in research increased e.g. in oilseed breeding, competition in the industry increased.[13] More generally, breeders were moved closer to the market as were working directly with the private sector companies. Market share of wheat and barley varieties greater than before privatisation.

·        Greater emphasis on hybrid breeding as seeds can’t be saved(?)

·        (Initially) funding increased as it was likely Government funding at PBI at the time was less than optimal[14]

·        Research moved away from ‘public good’ objectives that had been an important part of the work at PBI.

·        Much of the applied research that may be of benefit to the private sector is no longer funded by the Government/taxpayer

 

 

5) What are the implications for plant breeding?

15. Although the points noted above are specific to PBI, there are a number of wider implications that can be drawn from this resulting from the move of plant breeding research from the public to the private sector. These possibly include:

 

More public good plant breeding needed

16. The move towards profitability goals seems to have led to a move away from research for ‘public good’ reasons (e.g. for the benefit of consumers or the environment). Although commercial plant breeding still provides public good by producing varieties that farmers and consumers want, not all public good plant breeding will be commercially viable. Phil Dale has suggested a number of priority areas where public good plant breeding research is particularly necessary – pest and disease resistance, stress tolerance, human nutrition and health, introducing apomixes and ‘pharming’.

 

17. As well as these particular areas of research, some people have expressed concerns over the types of crops being developed. Much of plant breeding is not very profitable and the problem is exacerbated by farmers using farm saved seed. As a result, companies tend to focus on crops of global importance rather than those with low incomes (e.g. peas and beans) which may be  ‘orphaned’ with limited research conducted in these areas.

 

18. It has also been suggested that after privatisation of PBI there was a decrease in willingness to collaborate with other breeders, especially in less developed countries.[15]  [DN – how much do we want to go into issues around LDCs? I will speak to DfID to get their views on how research has changed over the years]

 

19. In addition to the need for more public good breeding, a number of possible other issues to consider in the future of plant breeding arise:

 

Linking applied and basic research

20. As described above, the move of applied research to the private sector has increased the gap between molecular geneticists and the breeders. The major research funders in this area all have crop science strategies and the importance of basic research in this area is increasingly being recognised, (e.g. EU Plant Platform and Vision launched recently). It will be important for these to be joined up and BBSRC noted in their crop science review that there was a need to make better links with the basic plant scientists in the public sector.  This is also important with respect to training and development of new scientists as the dispersal of plant breeding research has meant that there are now limited opportunities for multidisciplinary training in plant breeding[16]

 

Reconnect with industry

  1. Linking applied and basic research may mean also mean improving links with the private sector. However, the mechanisms are not necessarily in place to be able to do so(?). With the majority of applied research in the private sector, industry is likely to be leading the field in developments in this area, and Government will have to respond to these (e.g. developments of new GM crops). Tripp and Byerlee suggest that the public sector needs to work more closely with industry, and improve their negotiating and legal skills in intellectual property management in order to make best use of the knowledge and developments in the private sector.[17] For example, BSPB (which includes both public and private sector breeders) state that future projects for plant breeders will include low-input/organic varieties, adapting novel crops for UK conditions, enhancing energy and protein levels in forage crops, non-food crops, all of which have ‘public good’ benefits that should be developed.

 

 

Need to consider IP issues

22. Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Variety Protection have affected who conducts research and the accessibility of research. Investors, especially in the private sector, will be keen to protect their research which may mean that access to research and certain varieties of germplasm etc may be difficult/restricted/expensive due to their IP protection. Industry also seems to be focusing more research on hybrid technology. This affects research for developing countries, as well as the more developed world. BSPB have suggested that many breeders are also unhappy with current systems, saying they are unhelpful to holders of PVP. [DN – need more information here]

 

Public concerns

[DN - Do we need to include something on this?]

  1. Although there are few issues around societal concerns that are specific to plant breeding, the shift of research in this area to the private sector may have implications for e.g. public confidence in crop development. For example, some of the arguments against GM technologies are often tied in with the issues around commercialisation and globalisation.  However, industry is likely to respond in some way to public opinion, for example vandalism of GM crop trials is likely to have affected companies’ decisions to carry out research in the UK.

 

  1. Public consultation on research priorities in the public sector is limited but is likely to be more frequent than that in the private sector. Research committees now seem to include wider stakeholder representation (e.g. BBSRC plant science committee) so the public are likely to be able to have a greater influence on research in the public sector(?) However, there is still scope for greater openness and involvement.

 

 

 

6) Conclusions and recommendations

To follow

 

 

 

Next Steps

·        Obtain some external expertise to help with this case study – ideally someone from both the public and private plant breeding sectors.

·        Collect further information from e.g. Annual Reports, National Seeds lists the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report, BSPB, Defra and SCRI. This could usefully include a look at which crops had funding and which traits had been studied before and after e.g. 1990.

·        Get comments on the revised paper from plant breeding experts

 


[1] P. Dale (2003) Public good plant breeding – what should be done next?,  Journal of commercial biotechnology

[2] European Academies Science Advisory Council (2004) Genomics and crop plant science for Europe

[3] British Society of Plant Breeders website www.bspb.co.uk

[4] J Knight (2003),  A dying breed, Nature Vol 621

[5] Further details are provided in sections 1 and 2 of the AEBC Paper 04/15/B Research Agendas Workstream Draft Information Paper. Available at our website at http://www2.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/subgroups/research_agendas_consultation.shtml

[6] C.E. Pray (1996) Impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS,  Food Policy Vol 21, No.3, pp305-318

[7] R. Antoine (1986), Report on a visit to Europe by the Chairman of the Food and Agricultural Research Council (Mauritius) http://farc.gov.mu/ra.htm

[8] C.E. Pray (1996) Impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS,  Food Policy Vol 21, No.3, pp305-318

[9] AJ Webster (1989) Privatisation of public sector research: the case of a plant breeding institute, Science and Public Policy, Vol16, No.4, pp224-232

[10]C.E. Pray (1996) Impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS,  Food Policy Vol 21, No.3, pp305-318

[11] R. Antoine (1986), Report on a visit to Europe by the Chairman of the Food and Agricultural Research Council (Mauritius) http://farc.gov.mu/ra.htm

[12] AJ Webster (1989) Privatisation of public sector research: the case of a plant breeding institute, Science and Public Policy, Vol16, No.4, pp224-232

[13] C.E. Pray (1996) Impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS,  Food Policy Vol 21, No.3, pp305-318

[14] C.E. Pray (1996) Impact of privatising agricultural research in Great Britain: an interim report on PBI and ADAS,  Food Policy Vol 21, No.3, pp305-318

[15] AJ Webster (1989) Privatisation of public sector research: the case of a plant breeding institute, Science and Public Policy, Vol16, No.4, pp224-232

[16] P. Dale (2003) Public good plant breeding – what should be done next?,  Journal of commercial biotechnology

[17] R. Tripp and D. Byerlee (2000) Plant breeding in an era of privatisation, Natural Resource Perspectives 57, ODI London. Although their recommendations primarily apply to LDCs, the principles seem to be applicable elsewhere