TITLE: Public and private plant breeding AUTHOR: Steven C Price (University of Wisconsin-Madison) PUBLICATION: Nature Biotechnology, Vol 17, p 938 DATE: October 1999 URL: http://biotech.nature.com/ PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLANT BREEDING To the editors: A survey conducted by Ken Frey at Iowa State University shows that plant breeding research and development in the public sector has decreased 2.5 scientist-years per year from 1990 to 1994 [1]. During the same period private industry was found to have an annual net growth of 32 scientist-years. The availability of Plant Variety Certificates, plant patents, and the extension of utility patents to cover new varieties as well as plant tissues and genes has contributed to industrial interest in the area. Indeed, technical advances being made by industry may equal or exceed those being made by the public sector. Thus, it may be necessary for all public programs to contain some level of genetically engineered material from industry. I sent the following survey to 187 public plant breeders; it was subsequently sent to others. The final number who actually received it is unknown. ______________________ I have spoken with several plant breeders who have told me that difficulties associated with obtaining ?protected genetic stocks? from companies has harmed plant breeding in the public sector. I?m trying to determine how widespread this is. 1. Are you having difficulties obtaining genetic stocks from companies? 2. If yes, has this interfered with your plant breeding research? 3. If yes, has this interfered with your ability to release new varieties? 4. If yes, has this interfered with training of graduate students? ______________________ I received 86 responses, representing 25 US universities and 41 crops. Forty-eight percent indicated that they had experienced difficulty in obtaining genetic stocks from private companies; 45% indicated that this had interfered with their research; 28% felt that it had interfered with their ability to release new varieties, and a shocking 23% reported that it had interfered with the training of graduate students. This informal survey raises a number of questions: (1) What is role of public breeding? Is it in the public interest to have future varietal releases done predominantly by industry, especially in light of the industry consolidations, with a concomitant potential decrease in genetic variability? (2) Should more public money be used to maintain a critical mass of public plant breeders? (3) Should industry be content to train plant breeders? If the numbers of plant breeders are decreasing, what does this mean for the future supply of plant breeders for industry? Many of these problems trace back to ?material transfer agreements? (MTAs). Negotiating these will continue to be difficult until the public and private sectors agree on a common culture. This will probably include an acknowledgment that: (1) Title to inventions and/or varieties made will reside with universities; this is mandated by most universities? policy, culture, and federal law. (2) Universities will be required to grant exclusive licenses to industry. (3) Industry will be required to pay royalties for licenses (whether exclusive or nonexclusive) to plant materials developed by universities. Individuals at the highest levels in industry and academia must meet to discuss these issues. If every MTA starts with each side putting its most onerous terms forward, then negotiations will continue to be slow and the public sector breeders will be hurt in the near term; in the long run, companies may be hurt by a decrease in trained plant breeders. Finally, the public may be hurt by decreased genetic diversity resulting in fewer varietal choices. Steven C. Price University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53705 e-mail: scprice(at)facstaff.wisc.edu [1.] Iowa State Univ, National plant breeding study. (1996). © 1999 Nature America Inc.