Biotechnology
Commission (AEBC) Research Agendas Workstream
Meeting 26 November 2004
Paper
RA 5.2 – Research Agendas plant breeding case study
–
First Draft
Note: this is a first, skeleton draft to provoke discussion only, based on initial information gathering and discussions with Members.
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 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[1]
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.[2]
6. 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[3]
7. 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? [DN - Need more information
here]
2) Influences on
plant breeding research over the years
8. 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.[4]
There is now a move more generally in agricultural research towards greater
sustainability and greater recognition of societal concerns.
9. 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
10. 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]:
·
The Plant Breeding Institute was mainly financed
by a grant in aid from AFRC but not directly administered by the Council. Almost equal grants, totalling some £ 3m,
came from funds provided by 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 big firms (e.g.
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, Dupont de Nemours International SA, Shell
International Petroleum Company Limited etc)
·
Plant varieties developed
by PBI distributed to seed producers and merchants through the government owned
National Seed Development Organisation (NSDO). They multiplied basic seed and
collected royalties on seed. 70-80% of income of NSDO dependent on varieties
from PBI[5]
·
Commercial seed
production and marketing of PBI varieties done by private firm Agricultural
Genetics Company Ltd (AGC).
·
The Institute had a research staff of 166 in a
total complement of 245. In addition,
there were 40 postgraduate students and visiting research workers. Facilities included 170 hectares of
farmland, 1 hectare of glasshouses, several controlled environment chambers,
refrigerated stores and laboratories with a full range of testing and
analytical services in 1986.[6]
·
Through the 1950s-80s
plant breeding in public sector high: there were close links between basic,
strategic and applied and the UK was a major training site for plant breeders.
About 80% of wheat varieties grown in UK were bred there
·
Combination of PBI and NSDO
net profit before tax of £3m. Profitability was based on strong plant breeders
rights. Academic analyses suggest plant breeding is an inherently commercial
area and seems a field that would be suited to privatisation or public-private
partnership working. Also suggested that public spend at time of privatisation
was less than optimal, both socially and economically[7]
·
In 1987 the Government
decided to sell PBI with NSDO and it was bought by Unilever (who subsequently
sold it to Monsanto and more recently sold onto X?). [DN: need more information
on the recent history of PBI and plant breeding in the UK more generally].
·
In 1990 the
fundamental/basic scientists from the PBI moved to Colney to form the ‘Cambridge Laboratory’ whilst most of the
applied scientists transferred to the new PBI. The Cambridge Laboratory was
then subsumed in the creation of the JIC in 1994 (along with the Nitrogen
Fixing Institute and John Innes Institute).
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)[8]
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.[9]
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.[10]
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[11]
·
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.[12] 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
·
(Initially) funding
increased as it was likely Government funding at PBI at the time was less than
optimal[13]
·
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 will have led to
a move away from research for ‘public good’ reasons (e.g. for the benefit of
consumers or the environment). 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, there
are also 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 (e.g. wheat) and those with low incomes (e.g. peas and beans) are
‘orphaned’ with limited research in 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.[14] [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[15]
Reconnect with industry
21. 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). Byerlee and Tripp 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.[16]
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. The advent of IP and PVP has 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 - not sure there is a point here?]
23. 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.
24. 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
1 – genomics and crop plant science for Europe
2 – BSPB website
3 – J Knight
4 – Ref to long information paper for further details
5 – Pray 1996
6 – farc.gov.mu
7 – Pray 1996
8 – Webster 1989
9 – Pray 1996
10 – farc.gov.mu
11 – Webster
12 – Pray
13 – Pray
14 – Webster
15 – P.Dale
16 – although their recommendations primarily apply to LDCs,
the principles seem to be applicable elsewhere
