1. The AEBC’s consultation and information gathering
exercises on research agendas have identified a number of key drivers of
agricultural biotechnology research and thrown up a number of issues around the
processes through which research agendas are determined. This case study aims
to focus on one area of research in order to identify the important influences
on that field of research, and explore the implication of these drivers for the
research agenda in that area.
2. Plant breeding was an area of research highlighted
for such a case study early on in the Commission’s thinking, and a number of
consultation respondents also highlighted some issues relevant to plant
breeding. This has been a field where there have been significant changes in
the structure and nature of research over the past 50 years, and these can be
associated with changes in Government policy, technology developments, and
public views.
3. This study does not aim to provide a comprehensive
review of research in the field of plant breeding but is based on desk research
of existing reports and academic papers, and discussions with a range of
academics in the field and plant breeders[1].
It draws heavily on and endorses (?) much of the work of the BBSRC Crop science
review[2]
and the Defra commissioned project on future public research investment in crop
genetic improvement[3].
4. Plant breeding aims to improve crop performance and/or
quality through the development of new varieties. The origins of plant breeding
go back thousands of years to primitive farmers who selected the best plants in
one year to provide seed for their next crop. This selective breeding allowed
refinement of the natural evolutionary processes to produce plants more suited
to the needs of farmers and consumers.
5. It was not until the early 20th century
that enough was known to be able to manipulate plants in a more scientific way.
Today, plant breeding is a sophisticated, high investment area and some of the
technologies used, principally genetic modification, have proved controversial.
6. Plant breeding research is a long-term activity.
Developing a new variety can take 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 potatoes and trees. As well as developing new
varieties, plant breeders also need to maintain the genetic purity of existing
lines and pre-commercial seed to maintain the quality and performance of each
variety. The cost of maintaining a typical wheat-breeding programme is
estimated at £1.5 million per year.[4]
7. Plant breeding relies on maintaining a diverse gene
pool on which to draw, and the first gene banks were created in the 1930s. The
applied work of breeders also draws on many aspects of basic scientific
research, including studies to help understand the ways in which plants grow,
use water or are affected by diseases, for example.
8. Until the 1960s, plant breeding was largely a public
sector activity in the UK, but today the majority of breeding is carried out by
a small number of multinational companies.
9. There have been a number of changes to plant breeding
over the years and an attempt to identify some of the influencing factors
behind these is provided below.
10. Plant breeding has now moved on significantly from
that carried out by early farmers. Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries’s rediscovery
of Mendel’s laws of inheritance and his development of mutation theory, and
Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the structure of DNA, leading rapidly to the
development of modern genetic technologies, provided two major advances in
genetics. These advances, along with increased understanding of pollination and
plant reproduction have provided breeders with a host of new technological
tools. Techniques include protoplast fusion, embryo rescue and assisted
pollination, double haploid breeding, genomics, proteomics and genetic
modification. These enable breeders to significantly increase the rate and
nature of crop improvements that are achievable.
11. Through the 1980s and 1990s the large agrochemical companies
were keen to capitalise on the advances in biotechnology, especially GM.
Companies such as Monsanto invested heavily in their technology base with the
aim of being at the forefront of the new technology. Others took a different
strategy but also aimed to make use of the new technology – Bayer for example
looked for benefits from their agro-chemical businesses to help them buy into
biotechnology at a later phase, by-passing the innovation carried out by other
companies.[5]
Plant breeding was one important area of their portfolios that made use of the
new technology.
12. In the public sector, there was also a ‘technology
push’ to complement the ‘technology pull from industry’ with an increasing
emphasis on biotechnology. This was reflected for example by the establishment
of the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC) from the
Agriculture and Food Research Council (and parts of the Science and Engineering
Research Council) in 1994.
13. Therefore technology has been a significant driver in
research in plant breeding, although today it is evident that much plant
breeding still relies on conventional means with limited use of the new
technologies. (The possible reasons for this are discussed in more detail later
in this paper).
14. Although there are few issues of societal concerns
that are specific to plant breeding per se, there has been negative
public reaction in the UK to agricultural biotechnology, specifically GM crops.
This lack of public confidence in crop development is affected not only by
concerns on the technology itself, but also the ‘public to private’ shift of
research in this area, with some of the arguments against GM technologies tied
in with the issues around commercialisation and globalisation.
15. This has had implications for plant breeding
research. Public hostility, and its extreme manifestation in the vandalisation
GM crop trials for example, has affected the nature the research carried out in
UK public institutes, and companies’ decisions to withdraw from research in the
UK.
16. Plant breeding has changed over the years as the
agricultural industry itself has changed. Farmers are the ‘customers’ of the
industry and therefore the industry is responsive to the changing pressures and
demands of agriculture. For example, the food shortages after the second world
war meant that agricultural research in the UK was focused on domestic
production and food security. Plant breeding contributed significantly
(along with greater mechanisation, agrochemical usage etc) to the increases in
agricultural productivity achieved over the last 50 years. For example, from
1947-1992, wheat yields in the UK increased three-fold and around half of this
increase can be attributed to plant breeding[6].
17. By the 1970s and 1980s, the UK Government and
European agricultural subsidy-based policies had led to overproduction and food
surpluses, calling into question the need for research to increase production.
18. Through the 1980s and 1990s plant breeding was
affected by the UK Government’s shift away from ‘near-market research’. In the
1980s the UK Government’s emphasis on value for money in public spending meant
that Government Department research moved away from applied work that benefited
the private sector directly, and many assets were transferred from the public to
the private sector. Then in 1990, the Priorities Board for Research and
Development in Agriculture and Food recommended complete withdrawal from near
market agricultural research, representing around £30m of Ministry of
Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) budget. The ‘Realising our Potential’
White Paper then followed in 1993 which placed a strong emphasis on wealth
creation.[7]
19. These changes had major implications for plant
breeding, which is essentially applied near-market research. The most significant
change in this respect was the sale in 1987 of the MAFF National Seed
Development Organisation and a large part of the AFRC Plant Breeding Institute
to Unilever, to create the Plant Breeding International Corporation.
20. In more recent years, EU agricultural policies have
shifted the focus of agriculture to more environmental objectives. Government
research is also responding to wider societal concerns such as food safety.
However, at the same time farming has become a less profitable industry and
farmers are increasingly operating in a more competitive global market. This
means increasing pressures from international policy decisions such as the
enlargement of the EU, the ‘Everything but Arms’ Agreement and continuing
negotiations under the Doha trade talks.
21. We have found little evidence to suggest plant
breeding has responded to this latest shift towards sustainability policies
with customers and therefore breeders still largely focused on yield and
quality, and ‘high input-high output’ varieties.
22. There has been a significant shift in breeding from
the public to the private sector over approximately the last 50 years. The
majority of breeders in this country are registered with British Society of
Plant Breeders (BSPB) current membership suggests there are 52 breeders
operating in the UK. Of these, only 3 are public sector organisations. [DN: possibly add extra information from Defra and BSPB
on changes in breeders from seeds lists and BSPB membership].
23. In the public sector, breeding really only occurs at
the Institute of Environmental and Grassland Research (IGER) and the Scottish
Crop Research Institute (SCRI). The SCRI breeds potatoes, kale and soft fruits
such as raspberries and loganberries. IGER breeds oats in a private-public
partnership with Semundo. It also breeds grasses and forage legumes to
‘finished variety’ where multiplication and commercialisation is carried out
through a partnership with Germinal Holdings. The John Innes Centre has a
strong plant science base and although its work is mostly basic and strategic,
it has worked in partnership with breeding companies such as DuPont and
Syngenta.[8]
24. Defra also sponsors some plant breeding research and
in the period 2001/2-2003/4 spent around £18 million. This included some 104
projects, ranging from basic research to more applied work, and work on the new
crop genetic improvement networks[9].[10]
Crop breeding is also mentioned as an important part of SEERAD’s new science
strategy programme ‘Profitable and sustainable agriculture – plants’.[11]
26. However, plant breeding is not highly profitable with
the total royalty values for all UK crops approximately EUR 50-55 million per
year[12].
The breeding industry is a small part of the food supply chain and value is
realised further down the chain. The UK market is small and the number of
breeders is decreasing, partly due to increased challenges such as continued
reduction in volume of certified seeds, reduction in average seeding rate,
farmers using farm saved seed, regulatory and legislation pressures, and
Europe’s negative reaction to GM technology.[13]
27. The agricultural levy bodies in the UK also play a
role in plant breeding. Their total spend on research, breeding and technology
in 2001/2 was around £8million (a table showing breakdown of spend is in Annex
B). Additionally, they sponsor some work in collaboration with other researchers
- for example HGCA has supported the work of JIC thought a personal fellowship[14],
and BBRO are developing links with the multinational breeding companies to
develop the new genetic traits from their Brooms Barn Research Station.[15]
28. It should be noted however that it is difficult to
discuss ‘plant breeding’ in general as there are many differences to the
structure of the industry depending on which crops are considered. For crops
which do not travel well, the majority are still bred in the UK. For example,
in 2003-4, 97.7% of winter wheat and 99% of spring barley certified seed sales
were of varieties bred in the UK[16].
However, for oats there is only one breeder in the UK, and for oilseed rape
and sugar beet, the majority of breeders are based on the continent.[17]
These trial their varieties in the UK and work through seed agents based in the
UK (many of which are also arms of multinational companies). The breeders of
the main crops for the UK are shown in the table in Annex C.
The case of the PBI
29. The shift from public to private sector plant
breeding activity is characterised by the history of the Plant Breeding
Institute (PBI), and its sale had significant impact on plant breeding in the
UK, especially in cereals. 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. Public sector plant
breeding also took place in the Welsh Plant Breeding Station (grass and
forage), the National Vegetable Research Station (vegetables) and the Scottish
Plant Breeding Station (potatoes, forage and barley).[18]
30. It 1986, PBI received funding of around £3m in total, from the Ministry for Education and Science for fundamental
work, and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for commissioned
breeding work and work allied to breeding. An additional £ 1.5 m financial
support for research projects came from various commercial firms (e.g. Imperial
Chemical Industries Limited, Dupont de Nemours International SA). The Institute
had a research staff of 166 in a total complement of 245 [19].
31. Plant varieties developed by PBI were distributed to
seed producers and merchants through the government owned National Seed
Development Organisation (NSDO). They multiplied basic seed and collected
royalties on seed and around 70-80% of their income was dependent on varieties
from PBI[20]
32. PBI was highly successful and dominated UK plant
breeding in a number of crops - approximately 90% of wheat grown in UK were
from varieties bred at PBI.[21]
The combination of PBI and NSDO net profit before tax were around £3m.[22]
33. As part of the emphasis on value for money, PBI was
one of the Government assets transferred to the private sector. In 1987 PBI was
sold with NSDO to Unilever (who subsequently sold it to Monsanto.) In 1990, the
applied and basic scientists were split, with the fundamental scientists moving
to the John Innes Site to form the ‘Cambridge Laboratory’ whilst most of the
applied scientists transferred to the new PBIC.
34. In 1994 the Cambridge Laboratory was subsumed in the
creation of the JIC (along with the Nitrogen Fixing Institute and John Innes
Institute). Monsanto have since sold off several of the crop programmes to
other companies, and retain only a small oilseed rape programme which was based
at the original PBI.
35. In Scotland, a slightly different approach was taken,
with a public-private partnership model advocated rather than outright
privatisation. For example SCRI established a commercial arm Mylnefield
Research Services Ltd[23].
However, there have also been a number of changes to the structure of the plant
breeding stations in the Devolved Administrations, with the formation of the
Scottish Crop Research Institute from the Scottish Plant Breeding Station and
the Scottish Horticultural Research Institute; and IGER from sites of the Welsh
Plant Breeding Station and the Institute of Grassland and Animal Production.
36. A number of problems or potential future problems
with plant breeding have been highlighted through our reserach. It is possible
to suggest possible contributing factors behind these problems with an
understanding of the drivers on the plant breeding agenda and the changes in
research structure.
Weak links between
applied and basic research
37. It is generally accepted that PBI benefited from the
collocation of basic plant scientists and more applied researchers.[24]
A whole range of research activities were conducted leading to
commercialisation of many varieties (particularly in wheat). This suggests
therefore that the collaborations between basic and applied scientists were
successful, and many feel that the split of scientists when PBI was sold
fragmented the research base. However, although the changes of PBI were no
doubt a contributing factor, those who worked at PBI at the time have suggested
that in some ways the basic and applied sciences were not fully aligned and
much of the success of PBI was due to certain individuals who were keen to
breed commercial varieties in wheat[25].
Nevertheless, today there seems to be general agreement that there is a split
between applied and basic research. [26]
38. The division between basic and applied research is
more general and cannot simply be attributed to the issues around the
privatisation of PBI. Government science policy has focused public sector
responsibilities on fundamental science and strongly discouraged ‘near market’
work, leaving this to the private sector[27].
The report for Defra on future public support for plant breeding[28]
suggested that there is a middle ground of research that is not being carried
out as the public sector has shied away from near market work, but this work is
not close enough to market for industry to undertake it.
39. This means that not only do links need to be made
between basic and applied work, but also between the public and the private
sectors. This poses issues regarding ‘cultural and institutional’ barriers
between scientists in the different sectors which can be an inhibiting factor
on sharing information and knowledge transfer activities.
40. Another research ‘culture’ issue is that although the
UK is traditionally strong on fundamental science it is less good at exploiting
that knowledge. Some have also suggested that the research evaluation systems
are not conducive to research of an applied nature[29].
Industry have suggested that initiatives like LINK are useful but have concerns
over bureaucracy and that they are conducted over a timeframe that is too short
for genetic studies[30]. Therefore, there are inherent issues in the
research system that may acts as a barrier to technology transfer.
41. This is a problem in working towards Government
policy goals to build on innovation and a knowledge economy. This is also an
issue for the private sector as the breeding industry relies on basic research
in the public sector for its research. The industry cannot afford to support
long term research programmes and is reluctant to pick up new technologies due
to the associated risks, costs and public hostility associated with them[31].
Due to the fragmentation of research as discussed above, although a whole host
of new technologies are available, few are used in the plant breeding industry.
The major breakthroughs (e.g. semi dwarf varieties) in research come from the
public sector with relatively minor steps being carried out by the private
sector. However, breeders do not want to return to the system under PBI where
the public sector was competing with industry. Furthermore, the private sector
are still working on some of the developments from the PBI due to long breeding
cycles. This limits the range of traits and crops that are produced and
means longer breeding cycles. [32]
Fewer breeding programmes
42. Due to the worsening economic position of
agriculture, increasing pressures on the industry, public hostility to
biotechnology and a number of mergers and acquisitions in the industry, there
are now fewer breeders in the UK. This has led to a range of problems which are
briefly outlined below.
43. Loss of genetic diversity – It has been suggested that the amount of genetic
diversity in UK crops can be correlated with the number of independent breeding
programmes[33]. Genetic
diversity is crucial for plant breeding but a diverse genetic bank is costly to
maintain and the private sector may not continue to do this. (Although, it
seems that genetic diversity in wheat has increased since privatisation of the
industry[34]).There are
also potential issues over access to germplasm in the public sector with some
breeders feeling it needs to be ‘nearer’ to the breeders and that access was
not as good as it had been at PBI.[35]
45. The government policy decisions to withdraw from near
market research, the introduction of the plant breeders rights, and the new
technology push were all important drivers that led to the shift of plant
breeding from public to the private sector. As is to be expected, the private
sector’s aims for plant breeding are strongly aligned to commercial objectives
which has some important implications.
46. Research on sustainability objectives lacking - The industry today cannot afford to undertake work
that has purely environmental or social benefits, and there is little market
demand for such varieties. This leaves a gap in research that is needed to meet
sustainable agriculture objectives (e.g. durable insect resistance, drought
tolerance, Nitrogen useage etc). A lack of research into potential new markets
for crops with e.g. health and nutritional benefits has also been highlighted.[37]
47. Potential ‘orphan crops’ – This is linked to the issues above regarding the
crop needs of the UK, but there is also an issue around minority crops. Private
sector companies focus on the major crops which are most profitable[38].
Those newer crops or minority crops (e.g. durum wheat, linseed) will not be
funded by the private sector and there is currently a lack of activity also in
the public sector. Such crops could have potential environmental or
sociological benefits e.g.non-food crop development for environmental needs.
48. Lack of breeding for developing countries – The private sector is unlikely to carry out work that
is directly relevant to the needs of the developing countries as it unlikely to
be highly profitable. We have heard differing views on how much PBI research
was aimed towards developing countries and ‘public good’ objectives. However it
seems that research in this area has decreased, and this is part of a wider
issue around science for developing countries. It has also been suggested that
after the privatisation of PBI there was a decrease in willingness to
collaborate with other breeders, especially in less developed countries[39]
49. Greater focus on technologies that potentially
conflict with social objectives – It
will be in a company’s interests to protect their research investments and with
plant breeding research primarily in the private sector this can skew the
direction of research. For example development of hybrids which demonstrate
hybrid vigour but whose seed cannot be used, and ‘terminator technologies’ with
new genetic varieties are likely to be pursued. Conversely, techniques like
apomixis (where plants produce seeds without pollination) are unlikely to be
developed as they would potentially allow farmers to save hybrid seeds. This
means that techniques that would have social benefits may not be developed or
used.
50. Due to Government policy decisions to pull out of
research in this area and the sale of PBI, there are now very few places to
train plant breeders in the UK[40].
This is a serious issue for maintaining the scientific base in this country,
especially important given the concerns over multinationals not meeting the
needs of this country (as described above).
51. Policy interventions on intellectual property (both
at a national level through the introduction of Plant Breeders Rights in 1964,
and the UPOV convention in 1990) have had a significant impact on the industry.
Plant breeders rights are used by both public and private sector breeders, but
there is a debate over their positive and negative influences on research. There is a ‘breeders exemption’
which means that once a variety is produced, others are allowed to use the
material for breeding purposes without infringing the Rights, therefore
ensuring access to the genetic material. However, there is likely to be some
commercial secrecy in the development before rights are granted due to the
competitiveness of the industry. Furthermore, some have suggested that although
the Rights may not themselves be an impediment to research, it can affect what
scientists believe they can research without fear of infringing other
breeders rights.
52. It may also act as a barrier between public and
private sector as breeders and academics have suggested that the public sector
researchers often over-value IP and this makes industry reluctant to work with
them. [41]
53. However, there are more serious concerns over
patenting of genes as these are much more rigorously protected and therefore
are likely to pose more of a barrier to developments in plant breeding.
Lessons to be learned
when considering future plant breeding research
The
public sector still has responsibilities to support plant breeding
54.
As
discussed, the Government policy decisions in the 1980s to privatise much of
the industry and withdraw from near market research has meant that it is now
largely in the hands of multinational companies. Plant breeding is by its
nature a near market science and the fact that it is now largely carried out in
the private sector means that wealth creation is the primary driver behind the
research agenda. In order for any research to impact on farmers and consumers,
it has to go through the comparatively small plant breeding industry. A healthy
industry therefore is beneficial to farmers, consumers and ‘UK Plc’. As with
most research, there will be knowledge spillovers and externalities, meaning
that the private returns to research will be low and the sector is likely to
underprovide[42]. It has
also been suggested that this is a problem at European level.[43]
The public sector therefore has a role in supporting the industry, particularly
with respect to providing the long-term underpinning plant research required.
In order to reap the benefits of the research in the public sector - for
economic, social and environmental means – effective communication and
knowledge transfer is required.
55.
Many
people have suggested that there is a ‘middle ground’ of research that is not
carried out by either the private or the public sectors. This gap needs to be
addressed by the public sector. This may require moving into the realms of what
is deemed to be ‘near market’ and hence ‘off limits’. Defra is currently
carrying out a number of plant breeding projects that seem to be in this
applied area, and the establishment of the Defra crop genetic improvement
networks are likely to be helpful in achieving this. However, many members of
industry we have spoken to feel that their needs are not being met and
therefore there is evidently still some progress to be made in this area.
56.
This
research needs to be taken to the pre-competitive stage with a careful balance
struck to ensure that research is not taken so far as to compete with the
industry (as some have suggested was the situation with PBI), nor working
solely with one company (such as the Syngenta- JIC partnership which some feel
is anti-competitive).
57.
However
this needs to be in addition to continuing to provide the long term fundamental
research necessary for plant breeding, as well as conserving and maintaining
access to the germplasm collections held in the public sector (e.g. at JIC).
58.
The
research also needs to ensure it meet the needs of all breeders, including the
smaller UK companies whose interests may not be represented in the main
Government initiatives such as the LINK projects. This is especially important
given that many feel that the large multinationals may cease to sufficiently
meet the needs of the UK. Their research needs are likely to differ from those
of larger multinationals – for example the Defra report suggest that small
breeders sought investment in germplasm improvement and introducing novel
variation in useful background, whereas larger companies felt they could
exploit more basic science.[44]
59.
It
has also been suggested that in order to support the smaller breeders in the
industry to meet their research needs, innovative ways of contracting research
could be encouraged (for example, a collaborative approach between small firms
seems to be beneficial in France and Germany[45]). More generally, initiatives to build on consultation
with farmers and breeders, knowledge transfer activities, collaborative
ventures and information sharing are necessary to avoid further market failure.
(Lack of knowledge will affect both demand and supply – if breeders are unaware
of technical possibilities they will not maximise these, and if farmers are
unaware of performance characteristics of new seed they will not adapt them).[46]
60.
Related
to this is ensuring the regulatory and legislative framework do not
inappropriately hinder the industry, although detailed comment on this is
beyond the realms of this study.
61.
If the public sector
withdraws from near market research, Government has a responsibility to ensure
that effective links are made between the public and the private sectors, and
the ‘middle ground’ of research does not fall in the gap between the
fundamental research (conducted in the public sector) and the applied research
(in the private sector).
Public
good objectives not fully met
62.
The
private sector emphasis on breeding for traits primarily around increased yield
and drive for wealth creation has had a significant impact on the research
agenda.
63.
Conversely,
Government agricultural policy recently seems to be having little impact on the
agenda. The sustainability objectives, particularly environmental and social
goals, are not being realised. Again this is an area of market failure where
Government action is required to meet the gap in research provision by the
private sector.
64.
The
private sector therefore needs to be encouraged to take up its corporate social
responsibilities and work towards more sustainable goals in plant breeding, but
also the public sector will need to ensure it undertakes research that it is
unlikely the private sector can use.
65.
The
first step in persuading the industry to work toward the Government’s
objectives is effective communication about the new agenda and precisely what
is required from breeders. Several people we have spoken to in the industry
feel that is it is unclear precisely what is expected of them. Given the long
timeframes involved in breeding , it is also important that communication is
held at an early stage of policy development to enable breeders to ‘catch up’
with policy shifts.
66.
However,
many also admit that there are certain traits that they know could have
environmental or social benefits, but are unwilling to research this themselves
due to the costs and time required, and the limited markets for the products.
Defra has recognised this and states that “private
breeding programmes….cannot justify the exploitation of new technological
advances on their own to support the breeding of crops for 'public good'
purposes”[47]. Similarly, SEERAD notes that “it has become
clear that there is a role for Government in public good breeding in order to address
crops or traits not emphasised in commercial programmes”[48].
This is a fundamental rationale for establishing the Defra CropGenetic
Improvement Networks which aim to support sustainable development of the arable
sector, through public sector research and collaboration with the plant
breeding industry. It is too early to evaluate how successful these will be.
BBSRC’s crop science review also recently recommended that a public good plant
breeding initiative should be established.[49]
67.
Simply
connecting with industry and providing research is unlikely to be enough. For
example, in France the links with industry are much closer, but they are not
helping to delivering plant breeding that meets sustainability objectives.
Industry needs to be incentivised to work towards public sector sustainability
goals. As recommended by the Defra review[50],
“Defra should continue to seek to reform the economic signals from CAP,
legislation, taxation etc to create the incentives for environmentally
beneficial genetic improvement.”
68.
One
possible way to influence this that has been suggested would be through the
National Lists (already begun through the forum for sustainable seeds?) and
also through the Recommended Lists. Again, this has been affected by the policy
decisions in the 1980s which ceased Government involvement in near market
research, and subsequently led to the withdrawal from involvement in the RLs.
There are now talks about a potential ‘green list’ but it is uncertain how much
influence these will have. (Traits such as improved disease resistance tend to
be correlated with decreases in yield so farmers tend to chose higher yielding
varieties and use chemical disease control.) As noted in the section above,
communication with farmers, breeders and other parts of the food chain will be
key to ensuring this is effectively embedded.
69.
In
addition to encouraging industry to take on these responsibilities, the public
sector needs to fill the gaps in research. There are some specific areas where
this is relevant.
70.
Research
into traits such as reduced pesticide usage and durable insect resistance are
unlikely to be developed by the private sector. This work therefore needs to be
carried out in the public sector and sufficient technology transfer mechanisms
put in place to ensure that the industry is able to take these up. Defra has
begun work in this area with the commissioning of a project on the “varietal
characteristics required for sustainable agriculture”. For crops where there is
no little market demand currently but it would be environmentally or socially
beneficial to encourage one (for example for new environmentally friendly
varieties, or energy crops, break crops), the public sector will need to
undertake the fundamental research, but may also need to develop it further to
a more commercial stage. The more holistic, process based (as opposed to
product-focused) research also needs to be conducted by public sector
organisations.
71.
Another
area of research unlikely to be supported by the private sector is research
into crops, traits and technologies for supporting the needs of developing
countries. (For example, traits such as apomixis, enhanced health properties,
stress tolerance would have social benefits but are unlikely to be commercially
beneficial.) However, there are likely to be ‘wealth creating’ benefits to the
UK as a whole, for example through advancing knowledge by working with
scientists around the world, and in terms of reduced poverty overseas.
72.
It
has been suggested that the research into plant breeding for developing
countries has decreased over the years due to policy decisions which focused
more on the UK[51]. There is
currently a DFID plant breeding programme in Bangor which began in earnest in
1990, but its future beyond 2006 is uncertain. The science and technology
select committee report[52]
recently highlighted that there were some general problems with science for
developmental objectives and these are undoubtedly also relevant to plant
breeding. For example, the lack of lead department for responsibilities over
science for developing countries, and the lack of coordination in research. It
has also been suggested that more work needs to be done on identifying the
needs of developing countries.[53]
73.
Lastly,
the sale of PBI and the shift of research into the private sector has left a
gap in support and training for plant breeding scientists. There is a need to
maintain the scientific base in plant breeding in the UK and this is the
responsibility of the public sector.
74.
With so much research
in the private sector, market forces will have an important influence on
research agendas. This is likely to lead to an over-emphasis on economic
drivers in research agendas. Government therefore needs to ensure it
sufficiently incetivises industry to work towards more sustainable goals, and
that a well supported public sector fills in the research gaps that remain. Sufficient time and communications are also needed to enable industry to respond to the change in Government objectives.
Tensions
between science and society
75.
Technology
has undoubtedly been an important driver in plant breeding, especially when the
new biotechnologies were developed and there was much activity in both the
public and private sectors to capitalise on them. Over the years, it has
fundamentally changed the way in which research is conducted and enabled huge
advances in plant breeding. However, some have suggested the simultaneous
technology push and technology pull was too focused on the particular areas
around genetic modification at the expense of other methods (such as Marker
Assisted Selection), especially in the large multinational companies. Although
this is not an argument specifically raised about plant breeding this is a
field where it is particularly relevant.
76.
This
excitement around technology however has been tempered by negative public
reaction, to GM in particular. The private sector reacted to the public
concerns and hostility about technology by winding down operations in the UK
and Europe and are now slow to take on board the new technologies available.
This is partly due to concerns that there will now be negative public attitudes
to all biotechnologies, (but also as companies are reluctant to take on the
risk and costs associated with developing them). Therefore a ‘science and
society driver’ has had a significant influence on research in plant breeding.
77.
This
has been useful in the sense that it has spurred more research into e.g.
environmental effects of various crops and encouraged research in a broader
framework that is not solely focused on technology as an end in itself.
However, the ‘backlash’ to technology could hamper progress in plant breeding,
which would not be beneficial for economic, social or environmental goals.
BBSRC crop science review concluded that it was necessary to restore public
confidence in plant breeding through focusing on public good objectives.[54]
However, in order to do this, it is important that the technology drive works
alongside, and towards the aspirations of society. Improved engagement of the
public and diversity of stakeholders in the early stages of the technology
development would help towards this.
78.
Emphasis on technology
as a research driver can cause tensions with societal attitudes. This needs to
be managed carefully and early communication and engagement about research
developments can help to allow society to become a positive driving force
rather than a negative influence.
ANNEX A – List of those who have provided input to this
study
To be added
ANNEX B
Table to show funding by the UK levy boards and related trust spending on the genetic improvement of UK-grown crops (£000 in FY2001/02).[55]
|
Crop |
Levy board/ funder |
Research, breeding, technology |
Germplasm development |
Variety trials and recommended lists |
Total |
|||
|
Apples and Pears |
APRC |
11 |
- |
2 |
13 |
|||
|
Cereals |
HGCA |
172 |
119 |
979 |
1270 |
|||
|
Oilseeds |
HGCA |
40 |
- |
205 |
245 |
|||
|
Hops |
NHA |
42 |
- |
- |
42 |
|||
|
“ |
EMTHR |
25 |
- |
- |
25 |
|||
|
Horticultural crops |
HDC |
8 |
- |
37 |
45 |
|||
|
“ |
EMTHR |
347 |
138 |
- |
485 |
|||
|
Pulses |
PGRO |
- |
- |
125 |
125 |
|||
|
Potatoes |
BPC |
35 |
35 |
135 |
205 |
|||
|
Sugar Beet |
BBRO |
165 |
89 |
293 |
547 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
845 |
381 |
1777 |
3002 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||