National Academies Press: OpenBook

Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns (1984)

Chapter: Policy and Institutional Considerations

« Previous: Applying the Tools of Biotechnology to Agricultural Problems
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Policy and Institutional Considerations." National Research Council. 1984. Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10.
×
Page 59

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Policy and Institutional Considerations Our technical and personnel resources are still painfully limited for a major push into the genetic engineering of plants We need substantial improvement in experimental techniques and more knowledge about plant systems. We need modern equipment and instrumentation to take ad- vantage of experimental opportunities now, and we're going to have to develop new kinds of laboratory tools for the future. But most important, we need people. Too few far too few students have chosen careers in plant sciences. And that's primarily our fault, not theirs. By our federal funding patterns, we've made it too attractive for them to apply their talents in other fields of biology and science. George A. Keyworth Science Adviser to the President The application of genetic engineering to agricultural problems is not simply a matter of cleveloping appropriate vectors and cell culture tech- niques. Before molecular biologists can modify and improve plants with any predictability, they must understand the physiology, biochemistry, and genetics of plants. It is no accident that the first successes of genetic engineering have taken place with bacteria such as Escherichia coil, which have been studied intensively for years. The understancTing of the detailed biology of plants lags far behind that of microorganisms and some animals. Funciamental questions re- main about plant development, growth, and metabolism, as well as the biology and ecology of host-pest relationships. The effects of environ- mental stresses need to be stuctied. Similarly, additional research is needed on the susceptibility and resistance to disease, as well as the cellular, molecular, and genetic basis of pathogenicity. Molecular biol- 53

54 GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PLANTS ogists must be able to identify the agriculturally important genes, as well as elucidate gene expression and regulation. The problem, as George A. Keyworth pointed out, is that there are too few scientists studying the basic biology of plants. There are fewer still who are equipped to translate fundamental knowledge into effective genetic techniques for crop improvement. Funcling for basic plant research, especially for plant molecular biol- ogy, has been scarce. Most of the support for plant science comes from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), though other agencies, such as the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy (DOE) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), also support several areas of basic plant research. The research funded by the NSF and N]:H programs is primarily investigator initiated. Scientists submit research proposals on subjects of their own choosing, the pro- posals are evaluated for scientific merit by a peer group of scientists, and the funding is awarded on a competitive basis. At NSF, approxi- mately $41 million was spent in fiscal year 1982 on investigator-initiated grants in plant science, primarily through the Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. That total includes all plant science ranging from ecological and biosystematics studies to research at the molecular level. Opportunities for predoctoral and postdoctoral training fellowships in plant sciences have also been limited. From 1974 to 1979, the federal government supported 23,420 postdoctoral fellows in the biological sciences, 15,845 in the health sciences, and only 821 in plant science. It is not surprising, Mary Clutter of NSF said, that the best students have chosen careers in other fields of biology where they have a better chance of obtaining adequate support both during training and later during their academic research careers. USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has a sizeable in-house research effort. In 1982, ARS spent about $165 million for research on plants. Research in plant biotechnology, including research on photo- synthesis, biological nitrogen fixation, cell culture, molecular genetics, plant stress, and plant growth regulators, represented approximately $7 million of that total. The majority of the research funcled by ARS is targeted to specific problems. Through the Hatch Act, USDA also pro- v~cles tunas to land grant universities for partial support of the agri- cultural research programs in the 50 states and territories. Yet, unlike NSF or NTH, USDA does not have a strong program to support inves- tigator-initiated research. The exception is the small USDA Competitive Grants Program. In fiscal year 1982, $16.3 million was available for competitive grants; of that, only about one-fifth of the grants funded were in the field of plant molecular biology. · . . . · · .

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Neglect of Basic Science 55 Historically, agricultural research in the United States has been ori- ented toward applied questions both in the ARS and in the land grant universities, which are supported by a combination of federal and state funds. In the states, this emphasis is in part a result of the mandate of the land grant system, which was created in 1862 to perform scientific research of direct benefit to agriculture. Over the years, the land grant universities have developed a variety of practical innovations, ranging from improved seect and horticultural practices to better farm machinery and irrigation systems. "All of these clevelopments involved serious ancT sometimes brilliant science," said Lowell N. Lewis of the California Agricultural Experiment Station. "But overall the effect of this empha- sis—whether real or perceived has all too often been to relegate sci- ence for agriculture within the land grant system to the status of second- cIass research, narrowly conceived to meet the need of farmers for technical improvements. This system has worked remarkably well in fostering agricultural productivity, but in the kinds of problems we confront in agriculture today, it appears to have been something of a mixed blessing. The same system that by and large has excelled! at sustaining effective relations with the agricultural community has, over the last few decades, contributed to the declining association of agri- cuitural research with basic science." One of the costs, Lewis saicT, is that in the last four years enrollment in agricultural colleges has declined by 15 percent "at least partly because of the students' perception that the curricula in agriculture- relatecl science clo not represent the intellectually and professionally exciting studies on the cutting edge of science." Even now, according to the National Association of State Universities anct Land Grant Col- leges, 13 percent of jobs in agriculture go unfilled for lack of qualified college graduates in the agricultural sciences. Lewis predicted that this percentage will continue to rise. Similar problems plague the federal agricultural system, said George E. Brown, fr., a U.S. congressman from California and chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture. "Over the past 10 years there has been a decline in support for the agricultural research establishment and a failure to maintain its position on the frontiers of knowledge. A freeze on per- sonnel has kept capable young researchers from entering the federal system, and many of them have been forced to seek opportunities else- where. Plant biology has suffered from a lack of new blood and neglect of basic work. We have emphasized applying existing knowleclge and failed to replenish our intellectual capital." . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . .

56 GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PLANTS To some extent, Congress shares the blame for this situation, Brown conceded. "In too many cases, we have meddled with the system to ensure direct, short-term benefits to particular areas. We have protected established programs rather than pressing for new ventures." The solution, Brown and others agreed, is stable, long-term funding for basic research. A quick infusion of funds, narrowly targeted to a specific problem, will not suffice. Both the ARS and the land grant universities must strengthen their programs in fundamental science, Lewis said. In addition, the plant research community should recognize and draw on the traditional strengths of the state agricultural experiment stations. These stations provide a breadth of expertise in applied agricultural sciences, valuable field research facilities, and a tradition of close communication with the agricultural community. The experiment stations can help plant genetic engineers in developing practical new strategies for crop improvement. Opportunities for such active collaboration should be developed, Lewis suggested, adding that the concept of "agricultural science" should be expanded to include the total scientific community. Ronald Phillips, a plant geneticist at the University of Minnesota, reminded the participants that basic research pertinent to biotechnology is performed not only at federal laboratories and land grant universities but also at private universities, research institutes, and in industry. He and other speakers asked whether the USDA was providing the lead- ership needed in developing the basic sciences necessary for improved agricultural technology. Phillips suggested establishing an oversight group, composed of leading scientists from both public and private research programs, to identify promising opportunities for research and training in basic science related to agriculture. ~ 1 . ~ · . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ Away Inure are signs anal tne climate tor research in plant biology is beginning to change. "We cannot overemphasize the importance of developing our nation's human capital," Orville Bentley, assistant sec- retary of USDA said, recommending a two-part approach to strengthen university programs. One would be a competitive graduate fellowship program "targeted at those areas with the most critical shortages of expertise." The other would be grants to universities to enhance edu- cational programs in plant science through faculty training and improved instructional equipment, for instance. As Keyworth pointed out, the fiscal year 1984 budget includes a 20 percent increase in funds for basic biology at NSF with an emphasis on support for the plant sciences. The budget also proposes funding for new postdoctoral research positions in agriculture at USDA. Keyworth acknowledged that these federal efforts are only "fragile thrusts."

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 57 At NSF, the Division of Physiology, Cellular and Molecular Biology this year started a postdoctoral fellowship program for the plant sciences. It received 196 applications but had funding to make only 24 awards, according to section head Mary Clutter. The division is also attempting to increase the grant budgets for top plant biologists to enable them to support graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Clutter also pointed out that the nonprofit McKnight Foundation recently awarded individual research grants and six training grants in basic plant sciences that will amount to about $5 million over the next three years. "What the federal government has been unable to do," she said, "a private foundation has decided to do in a small but significant way." Industry is also a major supplier of research, according to Ralph W. F. Hardy, director of life sciences research at E. I. du Pant de Nemours & Co., Inc. He said that in 1981 in the United States expenditures for agricultural research and development, broadly defined to include every- thing from food and forest products to farm equipment to fertilizers, were estimated in excess of $5 billion. Expenditures by the private sector accounted for roughly 60 percent. Hardy sees the roles of the public and private sectors in agricultural research as distinct but interdependent. To the private sector properly fails the responsibility for advancing basic knowlecige and training future scientists. Industry draws on that resource in developing competitive agricultural products. In addition, as knowledge increases about genetic engineering, it will provide a more realistic framework for regulation. By contrast, the private sector selects parts of that system where it thinks it can make a contribution and get a return on its investment. "The private sector's job is to discover, develop, manufacture, and mar- ket proprietary proclucts, services, and processes," Hardy said. "It will, in doing this, generate some new knowledge. It will also provide some support for the public sector. But it shouIcl in no way be looked to as a major supporter of public sector activities." Multidisciplinary Training Not only will plant biotechnology require more scientists, it will re- quire scientists having different, broader training. "The most rapid gains in applying this technology to plant and animal science will come when applied and basic sciences collaborate in common research programs," saic! Charles Hess, dean of the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science at University of California at Davis. "For example, the combi- nation of molecular biologists with plant breeders and plant pathologists will accelerate the genetic engineering of clisease-resistant plants." Hess

58 GENETIC ENGINEERING OF PLANTS suggested that USDA provide aclditional funds through its Competitive Grants Program for such collaborative biotechnology research. Whether working in the laboratory or the field, scientists with back- grounds in agronomy anc! molecular biology will need to be able to communicate. Thus, a crucial component of the training of both future agricultural scientists and molecular biologists will be a grounding in the related disciplines. Such training has been sorely lacking to ciate. According to Philip FiTner of the ARCO Plant Cell Research Institute, "In my experience recruiting anct interviewing many young scientists in the last two years, ~ have the feeling that they have struggled very hard to master the jargon of their field of expertise and have then become addicted to it. They are not very good at communicating their ideas. There is a need to improve their ability to understand, appreciate, and use the main ideas of complementing fields. I've encountered graduate students who are working on the structure of mitochondrial DNA who question the necessity of understanding the details of energy metabolism in the mi- tochondria. Similarly, Ph.D.s working on a bacterial virus may be almost

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 59 totally ignorant of animal or plant viruses. They simply don't understand or appreciate what others do and how they do it. This is a very serious clisadvantage when they come into an industrial environment where the emphasis is on collaboration toward a common goal." FiIner suggested that students of plant molecular biology also learn plant physiology and breeding. Kenneth I. Frey, an agronomist at Iowa State University, added that plant breeders must gain a familiarity with molecular biology. In some cases, it may be sufficient to simply supplement major studies in one field with coursework in another. In other cases, more extensive multidisciplinary training may be necessary. A number of scientists trained in the molecular biology of microbial or animal systems are now being drawn to plant genetic engineering. An opportunity exists to attract more students to plant research through special workshops in plant biology and postdoctoral research positions to work on plant science and agricultural problems.

Next: University-Industry Relations »
Genetic Engineering of Plants: Agricultural Research Opportunities and Policy Concerns Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

"The book...is, in fact, a short text on the many practical problems...associated with translating the explosion in basic biotechnological research into the next Green Revolution," explains Economic Botany. The book is "a concise and accurate narrative, that also manages to be interesting and personal...a splendid little book." Biotechnology states, "Because of the clarity with which it is written, this thin volume makes a major contribution to improving public understanding of genetic engineering's potential for enlarging the world's food supply...and can be profitably read by practically anyone interested in application of molecular biology to improvement of productivity in agriculture."

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!