National Academies Press: OpenBook

Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies (1993)

Chapter: 2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses

« Previous: 1. Genetic Vulnerability and Crop Diversity
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

2
Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses

The period since 1970 has seen a growth in germplasm collection and conservation. Crop breeding programs have increasingly focused on international needs. Along with this increased interest has come questions about the changing roles of the public and private sectors in collecting, conserving, and using genetic resources. This chapter discusses germplasm collection and conservation efforts worldwide and the global impact of related activities in the United States.

GERMPLASM COLLECTION AND CONSERVATION WORLDWIDE

Several centers of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)—most notably the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR)—have been active in conserving and managing the genetic resources of plants. The establishment of the IBPGR in 1974 by the CGIAR signaled a commitment to conservation. IBPGR works with nearly all countries of the world to promote and coordinate the establishment of genetic resources centers and to further the collection, conservation, documentation, evaluation, and use of plant germplasm. It is a multidisciplinary effort guided, in part, by the needs of national and international germplasm banks (Williams, 1989a). In October 1991, a previously ratified agreement was signed by board members from China, Denmark, Kenya, and Switzerland, which established the International Plant Genetic Resources

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

Institute (IPGRI). After ratification by the Italian government is obtained, IPGRI will assume the duties of IBPGR and the latter will cease to exist.

Role of IBPGR in Catalyzing Collection and Conservation

Since its establishment, IBPGR has organized over 400 collecting missions in more than 100 countries. Duplicate samples are offered to the country of origin, in accordance with IBPGR policy. Seed handling units have been established in Costa Rica, Singapore, and the United Kingdom to facilitate the distribution of collected samples (van Sloten, 1990a). IBPGR has also published a wealth of literature on the scientific, technical, and organizational aspects of germplasm conservation.

Initially, IBPGR placed a high priority on the collection of major food crop cultivars. However, the importance of wild relatives and primitive landraces has been increasingly recognized in recent years, and these are receiving greater attention (Hoyt, 1988; International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1985a). In 1988, IBPGR organized or funded 22 collecting projects that dealt primarily with wild species of roughly 50 commodity crops. Ten projects were organized to collect landraces and primitive cultivars (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1989a). Nevertheless, progress has been hampered by limited knowledge of the distribution of the secondary and tertiary gene pools of many crops (Williams, 1989a).

Although the acquisition efforts of the IBPGR and the other international agricultural research centers (IARCs) are useful for the commodities within their mandates, reviewers have pointed out the need for a strategy dealing with other crops valued by developing countries that do not fall within the CGIAR mandate (Hawkes, 1985).

Germplasm Banks Worldwide

IBPGR has played a role in developing germplasm banks worldwide; this has been done chiefly in partnership with national governments, regional organizations, and the IARCs (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1985). Germplasm banks have been established in 92 countries and 10 IARCs (Alexander von der Osten, personal communication, CGIAR Secretariat, October 28, 1992). More than 100 countries have some form of genetic resources program or carry out related activities (Williams, 1989a), but it is far from clear how many are investing, or are able to invest, sufficient

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

funds to do the job properly. About one-third of the world's holdings is in the IARCs (van Stolen, 1990a).

There has been dramatic growth in the germplasm bank storage capacity in developing countries, from a handful in 1976 to about 30 today (Chang, 1992). Many germplasm banks have received some technical assistance, financial assistance, or both from IBPGR (Plucknett et al., 1987). Through 1984, IBPGR allocated nearly $2.5 million to 37 countries for conservation purposes. (Hawkes, 1985). Several Asian countries have built modern seed storage facilities with aid supplied by the government of Japan (T.T. Chang, International Rice Research Institute, personal communication, October 1990). Some critics question whether so many germplasm banks are necessary and whether the funds might have been better invested in crop improvement program

During test crosses of rice plants at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, the flowering spikes of the plants are enclosed in envelopes to prevent further cross-pollination. Credit: Bruce Dale, ©1992 National Geographic Society.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

(Frankel, 1989a). Furthermore, it is uncertain whether many germplasm banks will ever function without CGIAR support.

Irrespective of germplasm bank facilities, there are about 400 significant crop germplasm collections (Williams, 1989a), but little information on how many of these are financially viable. IBPGR has designated 152 of these at 38 centers as global, continental, or regional base collections (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1989a). They cover the major food crops, vegetables, and forages—roughly 50 commodities. In addition, 23 centers have agreed to conserve global, continental, or regional field collections of 9 vegetatively propagated crops (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1989a). However, how functional many of these are is unclear.

As the number of germplasm banks increases, the need for information exchange and coordination of their responsibilities also grows. The IBPGR originally envisioned a regional framework for germplasm bank coordination. This goal was successful for specific needs, such as the European Cooperative Program for the Conservation and Exchange of. Crop Genetic Resources (Williams, 1989a). However, the regional strategy was not effective where significant differences existed in program sophistication and commitment, where there was a lack of historical basis collaboration, or where permanent financial support was not assured. Latin America, East and West Africa, and particularly, Southwest Asia lagged behind Southeast Asia and Europe in developing regional efforts (Hawkes, 1985). Among the commodity-based IARCs only the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP, International Potato Center) have been fully effective in working with their crops. Currently, IBPGR is reorganizing its approach to one crop oriented networks backed up by crop-specific data bases on the premise that it will facilitate the use of the collections by breeders and other scientists (van Stolen, 1990a).

Various attempts to assess the completeness of existing collections (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1985a; Lyman, 1984) have been criticized for putting too much emphasis on the numbers of accessions rather than patterns of diversity, availability, and security (Chang, 1989; Williams, 1989a). Nevertheless, the continued growth of collections is placing strains on their management and funding. Unfortunately, many collections have never been adequately managed.

Considerable interest and controversy surrounds the concept of core collections or subsets as a strategy for reducing management burdens and facilitating use of the collections (Brown, 1989a) (see Chapter 5). Critics of the scheme argue that large collections (those

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

with a high proportion of the crop's total diversity) offer certain operating efficiencies (Chang, 1989) and that the reserve collection might be neglected.

Other practical issues were recognized early on as a source of serious future problems (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1985). Below-standard conditions for maintenance, lack of regeneration capability, insufficient passport data, incomplete data bases, insufficient technical staff, and inadequate operating budgets have been identified (Goodman and Castillo-Gonzalez, 1991; Plucknett et al., 1987; Williams, 1989a)as serious constraints to ensuring survival of the germplasm let alone to maximizing benefits from the germplasm bank network.

The potential severity of these problems is illustrated by several findings. In its review of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) this committee noted that test conducted between 1979 and 1989 showed that 29 percent of the National Seed Storage Laboratory's 232,210 accessions had seed germination rates that were either unknown (21 percent) or less than 65 percent (8 percent). Of all of the accessions,45 percent had less than 550 seeds (National Research Council, 1991a). The United State has fewer economic or other constraints than most other countries but, like nearly all of them, it has emphasized storage facilities at the expense of regeneration, evaluation, and utilization.

The inadequacy of international efforts to conserve Latin American maize germplasm has been noted several times (Goodman, 1984; Goodman and Castillo-Gonzalez, 1991; Goodman and Hernandez, 1991; Salhuana et al., 1991). Salhuana et al. (1991), coordinators of the Latin American Maize Project (LAMP), illustrated the fragile status of these accessions. Only about half could be evaluated due to lack of viable seed. Almost one-fourth of the 300 races failed to have even one accession with sufficient viable seed for evaluation. The lack of reliable storage facilities has resulted in the total loss of a large number of accessions and severe genotype deletions (genetic drift) in many more.

Evaluation

Until recently, IBPGR considered only characterization and preliminary evaluation to be within its purview and acknowledged that these tasks lagged behind exploration and collection. However, it is now putting greater effort into collecting botanical and other data on priority crop collections for entry into international crop data bases. In 1988, projects were under way for 54 collections of 30 commodities

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

(International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, 1989a). Evaluation is costly. In 1989, Williams (1989a) conservatively estimated that immediate needs for evaluation of major crop germplasm would require $30 million over a 5-year period. He compared this figure with total annual expenditures worldwide of $55 million for managing crop genetic resources.

Although in-depth evaluation is the responsibility of interested scientists rather than IBPGR, few germplasm banks of national programs have developed clear links with those breeders and others who evaluate (Williams, 1989b). It is apparent that many national programs do not have the resources or personnel to carry out evaluation or regeneration. An analogous situation exists for enhancement, thus creating a serious gap with a major negative impact for crop improvement in developing countries that falls outside IARC-mandated commodity programs (Hawkes, 1985).

IBPGR Interactions with the IARCs

The working relationships between IBPGR and the IARCs have evolved over the past 15 years as the programs of each have matured. Initially, IBPGR provided assistance to field collections, installing or upgrading some storage facilities, and assistance with documentation. Misunderstanding developed over IBPGR's role and claims, with some IARCs considering it a source of continued funding support for genetic resources work. This was clarified, and the IARCs have substantially increased their allocations for genetic resources work (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1985). Because IARC genetic resources programs have grown in size and sophistication, several have taken the lead in germplasm activities related to their commodities (for example, IRRI for rice and CIP for potatoes). Most of the IARC collections operate as base collections that are partially backed up by duplicate collections stored at another center. IBPGR now serves primarily in a coordinating role, collaborating when warranted on special projects and copublishing CGIAR publications on plant genetic resources activities.

Interactions with National Programs

IBPGR and other IARCs have had a broad impact in promoting and establishing genetic resources programs at the national level, with impressive progress seen in the growth of germplasm collections in developing countries. However, many problems remain that are beyond the ability of IBPGR, or perhaps anyone else, to resolve. These

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

include continued uneven geographic coverage, operational problems, inadequate budgets and personnel, and neglect because of the low priority of germplasm collections in national development programs (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1985). With many developing countries hardly able to support minimal agricultural research programs, it is doubtful that their germplasm programs will continue without external assistance.

Several reviews point to the lack of linkages between national germplasm banks and plant breeders as a major weakness obstructing the use of the collections (Chang, 1985a,b; Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1985; Frankel, 1989a). In a few cases, germplasm banks were established in countries that had no plant breeding programs to exploit the resources (Williams, 1989b). In the opinion of one expert, the shortage of plant breeders in small developing countries is a far more urgent problem than is genetic resources programs (Frankel, 1989a).

These critical weaknesses present opportunities where support by bilateral donors would have a major impact on the realization of benefits from national germplasm banks. Linkages between national genetic resources programs and breeding activities should be fostered through the support of germplasm enhancement and through the support of data-base development (Cohen and Bertram, 1989). Such initiatives would help to integrate genetic resources programs into national agricultural development strategies, but only if the support were sufficiently long term.

Roles of Other International Agencies

A number of other international organizations, both governmental and nongovernmental, have made important contributions to conserving plant genetic diversity. Notable examples of organizations pursuing ecosystem-oriented conservation efforts include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (now known as the World Conservation Union), the United Nations Environment Program, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (Drake, 1989; Heywood, 1989). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has expressed interest in the exchange of plant germplasm and genetic resources issues as part of its global program since 1947. It has provided IBPGR with facilities (until 1989) and support (Esquinas-Alcazar, 1989).

Since the late 1970s, FAO has been the forum for debate over the control of genetic resources that intensified after passage of the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act in 1970 (7 U.S.C. Sections 2321-2583).

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

Some have asserted that the CGIAR germplasm banks have exploited developing country resources for the benefit of multinational corporations (Brockway, 1988; Fowler and Mooney, 1990; Mooney, 1979, 1983). However, this assertion has been contested by others (Brown, 1988; Plucknett et al., 1987; Witt, 1985).

An FAO resolution was passed in 1983 that established an inter-governmental forum, a financial mechanism, and a legal basis for the coordination of international germplasm responsibilities (Esquinas-Alcazar, 1989). The intent was to give developing countries more control over both the global germplasm bank network to be developed and the use of genetic resources from their countries (McMullen, 1987). Until recently, the United States and many other developed countries declined to participate, in part because of conflicts over plant breeders' rights. After protracted controversy, the various sides appear to be approaching a consensus. Elements of the FAO's proposed program include a global monitoring system, establishment of a network of in situ conservation sites, and periodic reports on the status of world plant genetic resources.

DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CROP BREEDING PROGRAMS

The establishment of IRRI, Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), and other commodity-based IARCs since the late 1960s has greatly enhanced the use of plant germplasm to develop high yielding varieties (HYVs) of food crops. The IARCs have become the main sources of externally supplied germplasm used by national agricultural research programs. By 1983, the national programs had released over 1,000 new varieties of cereals, legumes, and root crops developed with IARC-provided germplasm (Anderson et al., 1988) (Table 2-1).

The adoption of the new HYVs has been widespread, and for rice and wheat has contributed to unprecedented yield increases of nearly 2 percent annually in developing countries (Anderson et al., 1988). By 1983, HYVs of wheat and rice had supplanted traditional varieties on approximately half of the lands used for these cereal crops in all developing countries, and in certain countries this occurred to an even greater extend (Dalrymple, 1986a,b). Yield increases attributable to the new cereal varieties alone (excluding increases attributable to fertilizers and other inputs) exceeded 36 million metric tons in 1983 over the yields in 1970, sufficient to meet the annual needs of 500 million people (Anderson et al., 1988). Thus, improved varieties have

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-1 Number of Center-Related Varieties Released by National Authorities in Developing Countries Through 1983a

Crop

Sub-Saharan Africa

Asia

Latin America

Middle East and North Africa

Total

Barley

0

2

0

8

10

Beans, field

4

2

90

0

96

Cassava

26

5

32

0

63

Chickpeas

0

1

0

2

3

Cowpeas

14

2

12

1

29

Maize

61

49

126

2

238

Pasture species

0

0

12

0

12

Pearl millet

5

3

0

0

8

Pigeon peas

5

2

0

0

7

Potatoes

31

16

12

2

61

Rice

31

140

129

2

302

Sorghum

8

18

5

0

31

Sweet potatoes

6

0

0

0

6

Triticale

2

2

7

0

11

Wheat, bread

40

44

114

66

264

Wheat, durum

5

3

13

20

41

NOTE: Excludes varieties developed by national programs from sources similar to those used by the international agricultural research centers.

a The term center-related means that a center of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research had direct involvement in developing the plant variety.

SOURCE: Anderson, J. R., R. W. Herdt, and G. M. Scobie. 1988, Science and Food: The CGIAR and Its Partners. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Reprinted with permission, ©1988 by the World Bank.

had a major impact on reduced food costs and improved nutrition in the developing countries, particularly among the poor. The semidwarfing genes in wheat and rice have also led to increased yields in developed countries (Chang, 1988; Dalrymple, 1980).

Progress with Legumes, Root Crops, and Vegetables

In general, IARCs working on legumes, root crops, and vegetables were established more recently than those that focused on rice, wheat, and maize. Germplasm collections are less complete for these crops than they are for the major cereal crops (particularly for related wild species), with the exception of peanuts, potatoes, and tomatoes (Lyman, 1984). Therefore, the impact of varieties developed from IARC-related germplasm is less dramatic, but the successes are mounting. In

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

During harvest time at a demonstration potato field in Bolivia, a government extension agent explains ways that farmers can increase their yields. Credit: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

terms of numbers of varieties released, the greatest progress for noncereals to date has been achieved in beans, cassava, and potatoes (Table 2-1).

In beans, for example, a network of Latin American researchers coordinated by the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT, International Center for Tropical Agriculture) was responsible for the development of varieties resistant to golden mosaic virus. These are now grown in more than 20 different countries, replacing traditional varieties on 40 to 60 percent of the areas planted to beans. Yield increases of 20 to 30 percent have been realized with no other change in production practices (Anderson et al., 1988). Both CIAT and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) maintain and distribute cassava germplasm, from which more than 60 varieties have been developed or released by national programs (Table 2-1). Potato germplasm distributed by CIP is currently under evaluation in 80 countries through 5 networks. By 1984, varieties had been named or released in 23 developing countries (Anderson et al., 1988).

Until very recently, the CGIAR network has not supported work

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

on vegetables. The independently funded Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center has assumed leadership for research on cabbage, mung bean, soybean, sweet potato, pepper, and tomato. Although efforts are oriented toward Asia, germplasm is exchanged with over 100 countries worldwide (Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, 1988).

Nurseries and the Enhancement of Exotic Germplasm

An extremely important contribution of the IARCs is the role they play in the enhancement of exotic germplasm and in the dissemination of exotic germplasm through international nurseries. No other group of institutions is as well placed for such a job, with respect to the combination of daily access to world germplasm collections, plant breeding expertise, contacts with breeders worldwide, and reasonably stable funding. Because of the difficulty of handling exotic accessions under temperate conditions and the decline in public sector enhancement activities, the developed countries are very nearly as dependent on the IARCs for these services as are the developing countries. In sum, access to a steady stream of freely available enhanced germplasm is arguably a sufficient reason by itself for support of the IARC network by developed countries.

The centers distribute thousands of seed samples annually to nearly every country in the world. The most extensive form of distribution is through international nurseries, which are designed to test varieties for wide adaptability and yield or for resistance to specific pests, diseases, or environmental stresses. Participating countries have the opportunity to test their own materials against the best international ones and to observe the performance of international materials that may be suitable for the conditions in their own countries. Specialized nurseries designed to screen for disease resistance provide early warning of emerging pathogen threats.

Nurseries for testing wide adaptability of major cereals involve hundreds of scientists in 80 or 90 countries. Specialized nurseries usually operate on a smaller scale. Each center may coordinate anywhere from one or two up to a dozen such specialized nurseries for each commodity within its mandate. In 1988, CIMMYT ran five major nurseries and three specialized nurseries entailing the distribution of nearly 3,000 sets of samples (Table 2-2) (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, 1989).

Specialized nurseries are particularly important tools for disease surveillance. Collaborators help monitor prevalent insects and diseases and identify new forms that may pose a future threat. CIMMYT

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-2 Number of Wheat Nurseries That Are Part of the International Programs of Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, 1988

Country

Wheat, Bread

Wheat, Durum

Triticate

Barley

Germplasm Development

Specialized Nurseries

Africa

253

106

59

69

57

71

Asia

289

47

44

69

75

46

Europe

178

115

90

58

48

59

Latin America

307

106

83

42

63

80

Middle East

126

75

24

37

36

40

North America

56

19

20

21

18

24

Oceania

15

10

10

3

3

10

Total nurseries

1,224

478

330

299

300

330

Total countries

83

69

65

56

59

58

 

SOURCE: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT). 1989. CIMMYT 1988 Annual Report: Delivering Diversity. Mexico, D.F.: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo. Reprinted with permission, ©1989 by Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo.

has used its surveillance nursery to study the genetics of rust resistance in wheat (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, 1989). IRRI organized specialized nurseries for adverse environments, such as those with deep water, acidic upland soil, and cool temperatures (Seshu et al., 1989).

Analyzing the diffusion of improved rice germplasm through nurseries coordinated by IRRI, Hargrove et al. (1985) urged careful attention to the extent of genetic diversity for important traits. They recommended that IRRI incorporate greater diversity for semidwarfism and cytoplasm into its trial entries, possibly identifying the sources of these and other traits in the nursery handbooks. They also suggested that IRRI assemble sets of improved cultivars with different sources of resistance as a means of facilitating the incorporation of greater diversity at the national level. Similar analyses are needed for other commodities.

Networks and Interactions with National Programs

International centers have stimulated the development of crop improvement programs where none existed previously. For example, IITA's work on cassava, yams, sweet potatoes, and cocoyam has prompted the establishment of 23 root and tuber programs in Africa since 1979 (Anderson et al., 1988). Commodity research networks have also

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

promoted greater investment in improvement programs. However, the growth of new programs has sometimes had the unfortunate effect of pulling scientists away from other programs because of the limited numbers of trained personnel.

National programs view the creation of high-yielding crop varieties and advanced breeding materials as the IARCs' most significant achievement (Anderson et al., 1988). The centers have also made important contributions to improving crop breeding methods and agronomic practices in developing countries through their training programs. Crop-specific techniques developed by the centers for insect and disease screening have also been widely adopted. Additional work is needed on strategies for increasing genetic diversity in national breeding programs through a combination of greater genetic diversity in nurseries, assistance with the evaluation of genetic diversity in national varieties, and assistance in planning breeding strategies, if necessary. IARC guidance with plant breeding technology is helping national programs to upgrade their capabilities to the point that they do virtually all of their own breeding work, when national support is adequate.

The international centers depend on national programs for technology adaptation and transfer. The IARCs can provide ideas, research objectives, methods, experimental germplasm, and training, but these must be adapted to local needs. The IARCs may supply finished materials (elite lines ready for naming), segregating progeny for selection under local conditions, or parental lines for local crossing, depending on the capability of the national program. Most often, the centers make crosses and send them national programs for evaluation of segregating progenies. More advanced programs, such as the bean breeding program of the Instituto de Ciencia y Technogí a Agrí cola (ICTA, Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology) in Guatemala, make their own crosses and exchange materials with CIAT and other countries.

It is important to recognize the growth in capabilities that many programs like ICTA have achieved, so that they are now carrying out their own crosses and developing their own varieties with minimal or no IARC input. Through a survey of Latin American rice breeding programs, CIAT found that half of them (representing 90 percent of the rice area in Latin America) generated their own genetic variability by making an average of nearly 1,900 crosses per year during the period from 1983 to 1987, which was more than CIAT had made (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 1989). However, many subsequently experienced delays in completing yield trials and in producing basic seed for large-scale release.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

The centers do not foresee an end to their collaboration with advanced national programs. Rather, they project a continuing role in the international testing and distribution of germplasm—tasks more effectively handled by an international organization. Support for international networks is another area of comparative advantage. The centers are also aware that many national improvement programs have serious constraints. To meet their needs, CIMMYT plans to continue development of ample quantities of experimental maize varieties for rapid local adaptation with a minimum of adjustment. CIMMYT is also continuing its commitment to practical training for maize improvement as well as outreach activities (Cantrell, 1989).

Research networks, such as the Asian Farming Systems Network, the Trypanotolerance Network, the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain, and the International Rice Testing Program, that have focused on specific commodities or problems have proved to be highly cost-effective mechanisms for advancing commodity improvement in national programs, particularly where scientists are isolated or few in number. Networks provide access to new technologies or strategies through, for example, regional monitoring tours and meetings, and collaborative research projects, with minimal cost beyond direct expenses. Many others exist outside the CGIAR system. Support for networks may come from the IARCs, national research institutions, bilateral donors, professional organizations, and so on. They present excellent opportunities to donors for high-impact, low-cost investments.

The role for donors in support of national germplasm systems has already been discussed, particularly for commodities not within center mandates (Cohen and Bertram, 1989). An equal need exists for support to crop improvement programs and public or private seed production systems that will help realize the benefits from germplasm. National programs must have the capacity in their crop improvement programs to take advantage of the germplasm available through the international network.

Concerns

There have been critics of the green revolution and, by association, of the IARC plant breeding programs (for general overview see Simmonds [1979]). It has been argued that varietal development at the IARCs is done under favorable conditions, that it emphasizes heavy use of inputs that farmers cannot afford, and that disease resistance strategies in the early years were based on vertical resistance rather than horizontal resistance, which is believed to be more stable

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

(Anderson et al., 1988). These criticism have been noted by the centers, and their breeding programs have been modified to meet national needs better (Anderson et al., 1988). The collections and plant genetic resources programs have expanded to include more landraces and related wild-type species in an effort to broaden the genetic base of crop improvement.

It is paradoxical that the success achieved by the IARCs, as demonstrated by the widespread adoption of their products, appears to be contributing to increased crop vulnerability on a global scale, although major disasters have so far been averted. Nevertheless, the situation warrants careful attention to increasing the genetic diversity of germplasm distributed through international channels and to other preventative agronomic measures.

International programs—both public and private—share a responsibility for ensuring that adequate genetic diversity is incorporated into the most widely used varieties or parental lines. Enhancement efforts should receive high priority and stable funding at increased levels. This is a particular charge of the public sector. Continued farming systems research is needed to come up with better alternatives to monoculture and promote more stable agronomic practices. Finally, the IARCs must plan carefully for their continued (although changing) responsibilities to national breeding programs. The IARCs have done a good job of tailoring their services and materials to a range of national capabilities, from quite limited to quite advanced. The centers must retain this spectrum of services, balancing the need for breeding finished varieties with the need for assistance with more basic research in new technologies.

GLOBAL IMPACT OF ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

This section looks at the global effects of changes and other developments occurring in the United States. Areas of discussion include the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System, proprietary initiatives, and the shifting balance between public and private sector roles in varietal research and development.

Changes in the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System

A reorganization of federal and state efforts dating from the 1940s and 1950s created the NPGs in the United States in the early 1970s. The National Plant Genetic Resources Board was established by the secretary of agriculture in 1975 because of concerns raised by the 1970 corn blight and the 1972 report by the National Research Council

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

(Butler and Marion, 1985). However, this board was abolished in 1992. The NPGS was initiated before many countries recognized the importance of conserving crop genetic resources. It is world's largest distributor of plant germplasm (National Research Council, 1991a).

The NPGS a diffuse network under the leadership of the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), with important contributions made by the Cooperative State Research Service of USDA and state agricultural experiment stations, as well as other public and private groups (Shands et al., 1989). Its mission statement, drafted in 1981, states in part that "the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) provides the genetic diversity necessary to improve crop productivity and to reduce genetic vulnerability in future food and agriculture development, not only in the United States, but for the entire world" (Shands et al., 1989:98). Many recommendations have been made in recent years to strengthen the NPGS, streamline its organization, improve its responsiveness to the user community, enhance its utilization of germplasm collections, and encourage greater collaboration with international efforts (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1984a; General Accounting Office, 1981; National Research council, 1991a; Office of Technology Assessment, 1987a; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981). However, few of these recommendations have been followed (National Research Council, 1991a).

Impact of Plant Varietal Protection and Patents

The debate over proprietary rights for plant and other life forms spans a range of technical, economic, legal, and ethical issues that are examined in depth in Chapter 12. This section discusses the impact of proprietary initiatives on public and private sector plant breeding efforts and genetic diversity.

Genetic Diversity and Germplasm Exchange

The passage of the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) has clearly stimulated the development of new crop varieties at modest costs, in terms of increased seed prices, market concentration, and constraints on information exchange (Butler and Marion, 1985); but it is not evident that he new varieties are any more or less genetically diverse than they were before. It was thought that PVPA would reward breeders for turning out substantially different cultivars. Unfortunately, it has encouraged some breeders to produce near duplicates

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

of elite cultivate through backcrossing and similar breeding techniques, an acceptable and financially more rewarding strategy (Duvick, 1987). The criteria for utility under patents are more stringent than the criteria for certificates under PVPA, limiting the number of near exact patented copies (Jondle, 1989).

The extent of diversity in new varieties is also obscured by the use of multiple brand names for similar or even identical products. For example, certain maize and sorghum hybrids on crosses of publicly available inbred lines are sold under many different designations, and wheat and soybean are given multiple names in the private seed trade. Whether or not hybrids and self-pollinated cultivars are correctly designated has little overt effect on their use as sources for future genetic advances. Once on the market, all are available for breeding. But the concentration of breeding and marketing efforts on a narrow circle of favored cultivars greatly restricts the possibility for genetic advance in the future. The extent of the reduction in genetic variance is hidden from public notice, because brand name diversity is not an adequate measure of the diversity of cultivars genotypes. Legal safeguards that are intended to prevent duplication in naming and invisible narrowing of the genetic base are only effective when they are enforced.

The problems of minimal numbers of cultivars and duplication and copying may solve themselves to some extent. Cultivars containing genes that are close copies of a cultivar with a highly successful genotype usually are not quite as productive as is the original cultivar. There is a reward for breeders who lead the way with superior products with genuinely different genotypes. The rewards for such breeders will be minimized, however, if close copies of their creations, sold at discount prices, persistently turn up in minimally short times. Therefore, PVPA protection, or use of the utility patent with its broader protection, may be necessary to protect and encourage breeders to turn out agronomically and genetically distinct varieties.

International Impact

There is essentially no protection of plant breeders' rights in developing countries, because few developing countries recognize such rights. No developing country is currently a member of the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants within the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization. Disclosure requirements for patents may even improve access of breeders in developing countries to elite materials— particularly inbreds—that would normally

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

be unavailable. Furthermore, it is possible that the value of germplasm may increase as a consequence of patent protection, which will provide a greater incentive for germplasm collection and preservation (Barton et al., 1989). However, patent protection will not help developing countries where breeding programs are inadequate or poorly developed.

This possibility underscores the critical need for a plant breeding capacity in developing countries so that they can realize the value of their genetic resources and ensure access to advanced breeding materials by their farmers. It is argued that the adoption of proprietary rights by the United States and other developed nations creates a responsibility to assist the developing countries and the IARCs in building the capacity to conserve and make use of these genetic resources (Barton et al., 1989). The immediate need is for sources of high-yielding, stress-resistant germplasm in locally adapted materials for the development of new high-performance varieties. In many places these materials exist in breeder's nurseries and trial, but there are no effective seed production or sales organizations to promote them.

Changing Public and Private Sector Roles

The balance between U.S. public and private sector roles in varietal research and development has shifted in the past 2 decades. Funding for public sector plant programs has not kept pace with the need for basic research and the maintenance of an adequate germplasm supply for both public and private sectors. Meanwhile, the private sector role has expanded considerably and is pulling scientists away from the public sector. It is inevitable that the public sector role, if not bolstered, will result in a lowered capacity to train future plant breeders. Moreover, private sector breeding activities are focused on commodities with major markets, and not necessarily on broader germplasm needs. Increased public sector funding for traditional plant breeding is essential to maintain acceptable yield gains and an adequate supply of enhanced materials for national and international needs.

The Decline of Public Sector Breeding Programs

For more than 50 years, production of new cultivars and inbred lines in the United States has been done primarily by breeders at public institutions with support from land-grant universities and USDA. For most crops, the majority of varieties in use today were developed

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

through publicly funded research. Even for maize, for which 80 percent of production is based on privately developed varieties, most of the privately developed varieties were derived from publicly developed lines, which are inbreds freely available to all(McMullen, 1987). Varieties developed in the public sector contribute significant genetic advances and act as a check on seed prices set by the private sector. In addition, public sector programs are an important source of both finished and unfinished materials for private companies as well as for international exchange (Butler and Marion, 1985).

Funds for public plant breeding programs have been seriously constrained from federal sources and, more recently, from state sources as well. Table 2-3 illustrates a decline in scientific human-years assigned to plant breeding research of 10 percent in agronomic crops and 25 percent in horticultural crops since 1970. USDA no longer officially engages in cultivar development and release, except for crops for which no other organization is willing to engage in these practices. As a result of PVPA, however, public sector efforts have been stable for some commodities (rice, turf grasses, and legumes) and have actually increased for others (wheat and soybeans) through the use of royalty income to support these programs. Thus, it cannot be said that proprietary protection has been entirely responsible for the public sector in breeding efforts. In fact, PVPA has contributed to the maintenance of programs for commodities that benefit from protection.

The phenomenon of reduced public funding is not limited to plant breeding—it applies to agricultural research in general. Biotechnology is one of the few areas that has seen growth, and the degree to which it has directly or indirectly diverted funding from traditional plant breeding efforts is hotly debated. Equally serious is an inaccurate perception on the part of some public policymakers that private sector breeding efforts can replace those of the public sector. The closure of public sector plant breeding programs for some crops would have serious negative consequences for the private sector, including foreclosure of companies without breeding programs, increased concentration into fewer and larger companies, reduced exchange of breeding materials, and ultimately, a decline in genetic diversity (Butler and Marion, 1985). Furthermore, continued deterioration in public funding will be responsible for an ongoing loss of scientists to the private sector and failure to train the next generation of plant breeders. A permanent shift of leadership in breeding research away from the universities will result in failure to maintain acceptable levels of competition, efficiency, and yield gains in the seed industry (McMullen, 1987).

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-3 Scientific Human-Years in the Public Sector Assigned to Plant Breeding Research of Agronomic and Horticultural Crops from 1969 to 1970, 10 Years Later (1979–1980), and Most Recently (1986–1987)

Commodity

1969–1970

1979–1980

1986–1987

Agronomic

 

 

 

Maize

65.1

68.0

54.5

Grain sorghum

16.4

17.5

15.8

Rice

7.5

10.5

10.8

Wheat

51.2

58.5

62.8

Barley

20.0

13.9

13.8

Oat

15.2

13.7

10.2

Small Grainsa

23.3

11.1

7.3

Soybean

35.9

42.4

45.0

Cotton

45.8

42.0

34.8

Tobacco

32.3

16.5

14.1

Alfalfa and other legumes

24.3

42.7

31.6

Grasses and other forages

33.0

35.9

29.8

Total

370.0

372.7

330.5

Horticultural

 

 

 

Potato

20.0

15.6

17.7

Carrot

1.5

2.6

2.8

Tomato

20.8

13.1

14.4

Bean and pea

20.1

19.6

23.5

Sweet corn

3.3

4.8

3.7

Cucurbit

10.5

16.4

10.8

Sweet potato

3.7

3.9

4.1

Crucifer

1.2

2.8

1.6

Onion

1.0

1.4

2.5

Vegetable crops

35.1b

26.6

24.5

Total

117.2

106.8

105.6

a Scientific human-years were assigned to small grains without specification of crop. This value is in addition to the assigned values for wheat, barely, and oats.

b Includes lettuce and other crops not itemized separately; in addition, this value would include commitment to the listed vegetables without specific designation of the programs by crop.

SOURCES: Data are from analyses by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of information drawn from Cooperative Research Information System.

The Growth of Private Sector Breeding Programs

The expansion of markets and the introduction of PVPA have had a stimulatory effect on private sector plant breeding programs for self-pollinated crops, particularly soybeans (Butler and Marion, 1985; McMullen, 1987). The impact on other crops has been mixed, however.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

Since 1982, the number of companies involved in plant breeding research increased for maize, soybeans, turf grasses, sugar beets, and canola but decreased for vegetables, grain sorghum, wheat, sunflowers, and the small grains of oats, barley, rye, and triticale (Table 2-4). Both groups contain hybrid as well as self-pollinated crops.

Private sector investment in plant breeding research and development increased fourfold since 1970 — much more than the public sector increase. Ranked by numbers of scientific personnel in a survey of private companies by Kalton et al. (1989), pesticide research was first, plant breeding second, food product development third, and biotechnology fourth. Numbers of personnel increased 34 percent for 18 crops or crop groups since 1982, particularly for maize, soybeans, and sugar beets, but declined for cotton and sunflowers (Table 2-5). The total number of private sector plant breeding personnel is probably equal to the number in public institutions and substantially exceeds the number in the public sector for crops such as maize, soybeans, forage legumes, grain sorghum, and sugar beets (Kalton et al., 1989).

Table 2-4 Number of Companies Conducting Breeding Programs on Major Crops in the United States, 1989 Versus 1982

Major Crop Category

1982

1989

Maize

66

75

Vegetables

44

37

Soybeans

26

34

Turf grasses

8

16

Alfalfa-forage legumes

14

16

Grain sorghum

21

15

Wheat

21

11

Cotton

13

11

Sugar beets

5

10

Flowers, ornamentals

9

9

Sunflowers

16

9

Forage grasses

5

8

Canola

0

6

Oats, barley, rye, triticale

11

6

Rice

5

4

Safflower

3

2

Fruits

2

2

Peanuts

0

1

 

SOURCE: Kalton, R.R., P.A. Richardson, and N. M. Frey. 1989. Inputs in private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs in the United States. Diversity 5(4):22–25. Reprinted with permission, ©1989 by DIVERSITY.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-5 Number of Scientific Personnel and Trained Technicians Involved in Private-Sector Plant Breeding on Major U.S. Crops, 1989 Versus 1982

 

Scientific Personnel by Degree Level

 

Doctorate

Master's

Bachelor's

Technicians

Major Crop Category

1982

1989

1982

1989

1982

1989

1989a

Maize

155.10

256.89

100.25

114.10

201.90

269.73

303.35

Vegetables

96.35

108.25

59.50

60.30

92.70

147.20

166.80

Soybeans

35.90

59.69

15.90

25.50

41.80

53.00

94.86

Alfalfa-forage legumes

22.95

28.25

18.00

18.25

16.60

29.30

21.00

Wheat

23.40

25.20

18.20

21.30

27.70

32.60

13.30

Grain sorghum

22.45

22.80

12.05

12.10

32.20

42.40

22.50

Sugar beets

14.30

22.00

2.00

14.30

6.00

18.00

31.00

Rice

7.25

9.30

2.00

4.00

4.00

7.00

14.00

Cotton

17.28

11.11

11.00

6.30

19.00

7.00

37.10

Flowers, ornamentals

4.50

8.35

4.50

9.50

12.50

19.00

24.00

Turf grasses

8.50

8.05

2.20

10.20

6.35

18.70

12.90

Sunflowers

15.00

7.26

13.00

7.20

12.80

15.20

15.50

Barley, oats, rye, triticale

7.05

5.50

2.10

1.55

5.60

6.00

5.25

Canola

0.00

4.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

11.35

2.05

Forage grasses

2.40

1.60

2.00

1.55

3.80

1.70

2.10

Peanuts

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2.0

2.00

Safflower

1.70

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.20

1.0

0.00

Fruits

0.00

0.35

2.80

0.00

3.00

0.00

0.00

Total

434.13

580.37

266.50

307.15

487.15

680.75

767.71

NOTE: Data are based on full-time scientist per year equivalents.

a Technicians were not included in the 1982 survey.

SOURCE: Kalton, R. R., P. A. Richardson, and N. M. Frey. 1989. Inputs in private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs in the United States. Diversity 5(4):22–25. Reprinted with permission, ©1989 by DIVERSITY.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-6 Approximate Annual Research Expenditures on Private Plant Breeding in the United States, 1989 Versus 1982

 

1982

1989

Expenditure Group (US$000)

Number of Companies

Projected Total (US$000)

Number of Companies

Projected Total (US$000)

0

9a

000

8a

000

Under 100

44

2,200

25

1,250

100–500

62

15,500

54

13,500

500–1,000

23

17,250

33

24,750

1,000–5,000

17

42,500

27

67,500

5,000–10,000

5

37,500

5

37,500

10,000–25,000

0

 

3

52,500

Over 25,000

0

 

2

75,000

Total

160

114,950

157

272,000

a Several of the companies contacted conducted no research themselves, but contributed funds to experiment station research on plant breeding, or sold varieties and hybrids developed by others on a royalty basis.

SOURCE: Kalton, R. R., P. A. Richardson, and N. M. Frey. 1989. Inputs in private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs in the United States. Diversity 5(4): 22–25. Reprinted with permission, ©1989 by DIVERSITY.

Private sector research expenditures for plant breeding in the United States more than doubled from 1982 to 1989 (Table 2-6). Investment in biotechnology related to plant breeding was close to $100 million (Table 2-7), or about one-third of total plant breeding expenditures, with major emphasis on maize and vegetables (Table 2-8). Private companies generally focus their efforts on commodities with large markets and on those that can be protected under PVPA, patents, or trade secrets. This is understandable, because the cost of breeding a new variety is estimated to be between $2 million and $2.5 million (McMullen, 1987). However, this focus gives rise to the concern that other crops (small grains, forage grasses, sunflowers, and some vegetable crops) receive little or no attention by private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs (Kalton et al., 1989) as well as decreasing attention by the public sector.

The effect of proprietary protection on genetic diversity in privately developed varieties is probably minimal. Although private sector breeders felt that PVPA increased the genetic diversity of open-pollinated varieties, public sector breeders detected no effect (Butler and Marion, 1985).

The impact of patent protection on germplasm exchange is expected

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-7 Approximate Annual Research Expenditures on Biotechnology Related to Plant Breeding in the United States, 1989

Expenditure Group ($000)

Number of Companies

Projected Total ($000)

Under 100

13

650

100–500

9

2,250

500–1,000

5

3,750

1,000–5,000

10

25,000

5,000–10,000

8

60,000

Total

45

91,650

 

SOURCE: Kalton, R. R., P. A. Richardson, and N. M. Frey. 1989. Inputs in private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs in the United States. Diversity 5(4):22–25. Reprinted with permission, ©1989 by DIVERSITY.

to be minor for most crops. Even for crops that are protected, the incentive to enhance profits by extensive cross-licensing will most likely relieve some constraints on exchange (Jondle, 1989). However, biotechnology patents are likely to impose serious constraints on exchange because they prevent will other breeders from using patented genes (Day, 1993).

Restructuring of the Seed Industry

The ability to maintain the inbreds parents of hybrid crops as trade secrets attracted private enterprise to the breeding and sale of hybrids early in the developmental stages of plant breeding (as early as the 1920s for maize). Numerous proprietary inbred lines of maize and sorghum have been developed for the production of proprietary hybrids, which also serve as germplasm sources for further breeding. Because of the commercial necessity for controlling these privately developed inbred lines, however, the lines themselves have rarely been made available to the public for breeding or other purposes, even once they are obsolete. However, after hybrids made up of one or more private inbred are offered for sale, the genes, unless separately patented, are legally available sources of germplasm for public use. Thus, hybrid development does not necessarily constrict the availability of germplasm.

Hybrid breeding methods have been the major incentive for the development of the private seed industry in the United States and

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

TABLE 2-8 Companies, Scientific Personnel, and Trained Technicians Involved in Biotechnology Research Related to Plant Breeding on Major Crops in the United States, 1989

 

 

Scientific Personnel by Degree Level

Major Crop Category

Number of Companies

Doctorate

Master's

Bachelor's

Technicians

Maize

19

90.1

44.8

96.9

26.5

Vegetables

17

31.4

23.6

42.0

25.0

Soybeans

6

17.3

9.0

18.0

2.0

Cotton

5

7.15

5.8

8.0

3.0

Sugar beets

3

6.5

2.0

7.0

0

Canola

3

9.5

3.0

20.0

4.0

Alfalfa

2

2.1

3.1

2.3

0.5

Sunflowers

2

1.0

2.0

4.0

0.0

Wheat

2

1.1

1.1

1.1

0.1

Other small grains

1

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.0

Rice

1

0.25

0.0

0.0

0.0

Turf grasses

1

0.0

0.9

0.0

0.0

Forage grasses

1

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

Undifferentiated by cropa

2

85.0

20.0

25.0

10.0

Total

65

251.9

116.4

224.3

71.1

a One company conducts biotechnology research on canola, tomato, maize, rice, tobacco, sunflowers, sugar beets, ornamentals, cotton, melons, peppers, soybeans, coffee, cocoa, and oil palms. The second company is researching corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa.

SOURCE: Kalton, R. R., P. A. Richardson, and N. M. Frey. 1989. Inputs in private sector plant breeding and biotechnology research programs in the United States. Diversity5(4): 22–25. Reprinted with permission, ©1989 by DIVERSITY.

Europe since the 1930s, because hybrids sell for four to eight times the cost of open-pollinated varieties (Doyle, 1985; McMullen, 1987). Until 1970, the U.S. seed industry was made up largely of numerous family firms with regional or crop specializations, except for maize. Large private companies tended to dominate hybrid markets, whereas public sector and small companies controlled open-pollinated markets in the United States as well as in Europe. Most private sector research was done by a small number of companies.

The restructuring of the world seed industry, following passage of the PVPA legislation in the United States in 1970, drew much attention as large chemical, pharmaceutical, and food processing companies absorbed many independent seed companies in the United States and Europe. However, the trend was not solely due to PVPA,

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

but to a range of factors, including the profitability of the seed trade, the potential of biotechnology, the worldwide impact of genetic research as evidenced by the success of the green revolution, and greater awareness of the potential value of plant genetic resources. Large companies, which were better able to absorb the risks and fund the rising costs of research (particularly for biotechnology), were attracted to what McMullen (1987) called the genetic supply industry.

The mergers provided greater resources for research, a broader research base, an enhanced capacity for testing and marketing, and larger markets. However, mergers may have reduced competition and subjected the seed industry to corporate management techniques and quarterly profit expectations. Nevertheless, the concentration of companies in the market is still far lower than that in many other industries. For example, in the world seed market of 1983, the percentage of sales attributable to the top five companies was less than 20 percent, leaving a niche for smaller companies, especially in local markets and for minor crops (McMullen, 1987). Although conglomerates held nearly half of all plant variety protection certificates by 1982, private market shares did not seriously hamper competitive forces in open-pollinated seed markets, where public varieties still dominate (Butler and Marion, 1985). Even in the hybrid maize industry, conglomerates have not been able to outcompete Pioneer—an old, independent seed company whose market share increased steadily from 1973 to 1983 (McMullen, 1987). Overall, however, these recent trends have probably reduced competition and may have also reduced crop plant genetic diversity through the consolidation of plant breeding activities (Butler and Marion, 1985).

Balancing Public and Private Sector Roles

Through the years, a pragmatic balance has developed between public and private sector plant breeding efforts, which has proved quite effective in producing crop varieties for the industrial countries. The private sector has focused on applied research, seed production, and marketing. It concentrates on finished varieties of major crops with large potential markets, such as maize, sorghum, soybean, sugar beets, alfalfa, and cotton. The public sector has performed basic research and some applied research; developed finished varieties for wheat, soybeans, and most minor crops; developed parental lines and introgressed exotic materials; and put major efforts into training and information dissemination. The relationship between the two sectors is not one of competition but, rather, one of logical complementarily based on the interests of each sector.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

Many aspects of this complementarity will continue. In practice, private industry lacks market incentives to breed all crop plants and cannot justify the investment to do so. It is appropriate that public sector breeders sustain breeding programs for species not bred by private industry. However, to fulfill their function of teaching and training future plant breeders, the universities must continue to do at least some plant breeding with major crops. The public sector will continue to have a greater incentive and a clearer mandate for long-term genetic enhancement by using wild and unimproved germplasm than the private sector and should make this one of its major commitments. Recognizing this need, the NPGS has placed increasing priority on strengthening enhancement activities (Elgin and Miller, 1989).

The vigor of the system derives from the variety of institutions within each sector and from the roughly equal balance between the strengths of the public and private sectors, at least until recently. An optimum balance between the two sectors would retain a diversity of seed producers and germplasm programs that are in both the public and private sectors, and that would include private companies, public institutions and foundations, grass-roots nonprofit initiatives, and international centers. This mixture would ensure competition to produce better varieties, would place checks and balances on the cost and supply of seeds between the two sectors, and would serve a wider range of farmer and consumer interests (McMullen, 1987).

The growth of biotechnology undeniably has been a major factor in altering the balance between the public and private sectors in recent years. Heavy research capitalization costs, which are more easily borne by industry, have favored the private sector. Public sector funding has also been attracted to biotechnology, although at lower levels than that in the private sector and often at the expense of plant breeding programs. USDA funds are increasingly taken away from even basic plant breeding programs, unless they are related to biotechnology. State legislatures—the other chief provider of funds for land-grant institutions—are generally not interested in funding conventional plant breeding programs, although they often fund biotechnology research in support of plant breeding when they believe it may expand the economic development of the state. The contributions of molecular biology, however, will supplement, not replace, elite and exotic varieties of plants as major sources for genetic advance.

Teamwork between molecular biologists and breeders is essential to harness technological advances to varietal development (Fehr, 1989). Breeders know the appropriate genetic goals and likely gene sources,

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

what it takes to make a commercially viable cultivar, and what are the expectations and needs of the farmers. Molecular systems are not yet ready to deal with the complex traits of economic importance (for example, yield and drought tolerance) that are handled by breeders. However, biotechnology does have the potential, in the near term, to make significant contributions in elucidating genetic control mechanisms, generating novel genetic variation, developing rapid diagnostic aids for pathogen identification, developing or selecting certain types of superior individuals, and a host of technological aids that will accelerate the progress of plant breeders.

The varietal protection that preceded, and the patent protection legislation that has accompanied, the rise of biotechnology appear to have had little impact on the direction of public sector programs, other than a somewhat greater emphasis on germplasm enhancement and basic research and less emphasis on cultivar development than previously (Butler and Marion, 1985). Nevertheless, many public sector breeders find it difficult to adjust to the concept of limiting free access to their cultivars, and public use of legal protection has been slight relative to that in the private sector (Barton et al., 1989; Butler and Marion, 1985). The public sector has begun to consider the extent to which it might exploit legal protection—either to generate revenues or to keep developments in the public domain through nonexclusive or royalty-free licensing (Barton et al., 1989).

Clearly, adequate funding is the major requirement for sustaining public sector strengths to maintain an optimum balance between the public and private sectors in plant breeding and genetic resources programs. As a means of reaching this goal, funding for biotechnology should be linked to support for traditional plant breeding programs. Land-grant universities need to use greater creativity in soliciting public funds for "packages" or teams of molecular biologists, breeders, pathologists, and other essential scientists to work on commodities important at the level. Industry could tapped for matching funds—particularly for training components—whose importance they recognize. The team approach could be successful not only in linking funding for breeding to biotechnology, but in stimulating the interface between disciplines, accelerating biotechnology applications to breeding, and attracting talented students into breeding via biotechnology.

International Implications

In dramatic contrast to circumstances in developed countries, the indigenous private sector role in varietal development and seed distribution

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

is minimal or nonexistent in most developing countries. Multinational seed companies may be reluctant to invest in initiatives in developing countries because of the lack of proprietary protection, the small size of markets, and unfavorable national policies.

The current situation results in part from the establishment of seed organizations in many developing countries during the 1960s and 1970s to provide low – cost seed for farmers (McMullen, 1987). These were often given legal monopolies, with budgets heavily subsidized by the government. The private sector could not compete with subsidized low prices, preferential access to improved varieties from national breeding programs and IARCs, and public control, seed certification, distribution, and farm credit systems. Predictably, the local private seed industry was severely weakened, international seed company operations were seriously hampered (if they were permitted to operate in the country at all), and the semi-state-controlled seed operations often became costly and ineffective seed suppliers.

The lack of an effective seed industry— public or private—remains an important constraint to the distribution of improved varieties in most developing countries (McMullen, 1987). National seed policies have often not been successful, and reform is needed to benefit from new genetic developments. There is a clear need for allocation of functions between the public and private sectors that will be most effective in promoting agricultural development. Private seed companies should be strengthened and encouraged to take over seed operations (production, distribution, and customer service) that they perform best. The public sector clearly has an important role to play in research, seed certification, quality control, regulatory and extension functions, but its performance must be improved.

In the 1990s, the challenge is to promote the adoption of improved seed by farmers in developing countries who fear the risks and are reluctant to pay market prices (McMullen, 1987). The governments of developing countries should recognize that private seed companies can contribute to national agricultural progress and should consider modifying seed policies to encourage their participation. Companies must be willing to adapt to the countries' needs and fit into their development strategies, if they are to realize a share of the potential market.

National governments should formulate seed policies that encourage private seed production, either by local companies or with external collaboration. Many different degrees of engagement are possible with international seed companies, from distributional arrangements, to contractual growing, to joint ventures (Douglas, 1980). Local, small-scale seed production is particularly attractive for crops for which

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

the market is small and external seed company involvement is not feasible or desirable. CIAT has promoted this approach successfully for beans (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 1987), pasture grasses, and legumes (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, 1989) in Latin America. The CIAT Seed Unit works through existing local seed companies, farmer cooperatives, or enterprising individuals by providing training and extension support. The approach stimulates farmer interest in improved varieties and may break the bottleneck on an improved seed supply.

All of the options presented here are predicated on the existence of a strong national or regional plant germplasm and breeding system to supply the raw and finished materials for improved seed. At the Keystone International Dialogue on Plant Genetic Resources, it was recognized that the high costs of national plant germplasm systems put them beyond the means of many countries (Keystone Center, 1990). Regional programs are attractive alternatives that can be fostered through the use of commodity research networks. To be effective, these need modest but stable and long-term funding.

The Keystone group saw an urgent need for global coordination and funding mechanisms to meet worldwide genetic resources conservation needs— conservatively estimated at $300 million to $500 million annually (Keystone Center, 1990, 1991). Discussions are continuing on how to raise the funds from public and private sector contributions and how they should be invested. These worldwide issues call for public sector leadership. Although consensus and implementation may still lie many difficult years ahead, the depth of international concern and the extent of the dialogue are encouraging.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The need to broaden crop genetic diversity continues to be critical in the United States, but it is particularly urgent in developing countries, where the potential for vulnerability has increased significantly over the past 15 years. Case studies of diversity in major crops since 1970 indicate two trends: (1) In the United States, the increase in the numbers of plant varieties and the decrease in the varietal dominance of some major crops suggest that genetic diversity has increased. Concern remains, however, over the degree of similarity in the ancestries of major varieties and the amount of reduction in genetic diversity that may have taken place with the consolidation accompanying the structural changes in the U.S. plant breeding industry. (2) Genetic diversity in rice and wheat has decreased in developing countries. Fewer landraces are grown because of increasing

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

dominance by HYVs. Because private seed companies were not involved in the wheat or rice seed business in developing countries prior to 1980, farmer choice (conditioned by financial pressure to grow HYVs and a limited selection of available varieties) is the major reason for the loss of diversity in farm crops. Genetic diversity in rice is also shrinking rapidly in the United States and Japan (Chang and Li, 1991).

For many areas and in many crops, reducing vulnerability remains a challenge. Concern is growing that breeding programs in developing countries are not equipped to react rapidly if faced with major epidemics. Recent examinations of rice breeding in the United States have shown that some cultivars have more than 70 percent of their genes in common (Dilday, 1990). At present, the wheat varieties in the United States seem to have greater genetic diversity than the wheat and rice varieties in many developing countries. For example, in the United States, six varieties of wheat accounted for 38 percent of the total wheat surface area in 1980. In comparison, in India, only one variety accounted for 30 percent of the wheat plantings in 1983, and in Indonesia, two rice varieties accounted for 54 percent of the cultivated rice area in 1983 to 1984.

Countries must make developing capacities for genetic resources management and use, including human and physical resources, a matter of national agricultural security.

This development is essential in view of the grave potential for increasing global genetic uniformity of major food crops and the associated potential risks of vulnerability. Countries should assess the extent to which their needs for major crops are met by national and international agricultural programs and seed companies and should develop or strengthen programs for commodities not adequately addressed by existing systems. Regional capabilities for monitoring, enhancement, and breeding should be shared where national resources are limited.

Plant germplasm conservation and exchange is carried out on a scale never believed possible even as recently as 20 years ago. This is a result of efforts of many national and international programs in the intervening decades. The burgeoning of germplasm initiatives worldwide, however, is creating crises of management, staffing, communication, equity, and funding.

Global efforts are needed to enable broad and effective conservation and and use of genetic resources.

Utilization of germplasm bank resources has lagged far behind conservation efforts because of inadequate linkages among the plant

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×

breeders and other germplasm workers. A global effort should include cooperation among the various existing institutional, national, regional, and international germplasm collections. The lack of a global data base providing information and access to the vast collections that continue to accumulate is a critical constraint to the development and management of such a system. Inadequate management and funding of genetic resources conservation risks potentially serious problems of vulnerability in the future. These issues are addressed in subsequent chapters.

Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"2. Crop Diversity: Institutional Responses." National Research Council. 1993. Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2116.
×
Page 116
Next: 3. In Situ Conservation of Genetic Resources »
Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $120.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This anchor volume to the series Managing Global Genetic Resources examines the structure that underlies efforts to preserve genetic material, including the worldwide network of genetic collections; the role of biotechnology; and a host of issues that surround management and use.

Among the topics explored are in situ versus ex situ conservation, management of very large collections of genetic material, problems of quarantine, the controversy over ownership or copyright of genetic material, and more.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!