Meeting December 15-16, 1992 - National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC)

Executive Summary
First Meeting December 15-16, 1992

1. The first meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held December 15-16, 1992 in Washington, DC. The NGRAC was chartered March 10, 1992 under USDA Departmental Regulation 1043-8 as directed by Section 1632 of P.L. 101-624, November 28, 1990. It was attended by all nine appointed members and five of the seven ex officio members. Neal Jorgensen was appointed as Chair by the Secretary and Don Duvick was elected Vice-Chair by the Council.

2. The Director of the National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP), Henry Shands, and resource persons from the program presented an overview of the ad hoc life form reports used in putting together the Initial Report called for in the authorizing legislation. Reports were presented to the Council on programs for plant germplasm, plant genome, animal germplasm, animal genome, National Research Initiative (NRI) funding of the genome activities, insect germplasm, microbial germplasm, forest tree germplasm, and the database for the NGRP. The NGRAC learned that the Initial Report had not been forwarded from the USDA to the Congress.

3. Members of the Council presented reports on international issues, intellectual property rights, international trade and nutrition as they affect the NGRP. The Council is interested in developments with U.S. funding for international genetic resources activities through the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the access and exchange issues with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Convention on Biological Diversity and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.

4. The Council asked that several reports be prepared for the next meeting scheduled for May 12-13, 1992. The request included:

1. a draft strategic plan for the NGRP to include organizational structure, visionary ideas for the program, long and short term goals, objectives and programmatic activities, priorities within and between life forms, and databases;
2. a briefing paper (for discussion) on the status of the database effort and its funding;
3. a briefing paper (for discussion) on access and exchange of genetic resources (taking into account the discussion on the FAO International Undertaking, the UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity, Material Transfer Agreements, etc.), and;
4. a briefing paper (for discussion) concerning U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for international genetic resources activities, International Agricultural Research Centers, etc.

5. The Council noted the scarcity of funds permitted for the advisory committees to function during FY93 and the potential impact on its ability to meet and carry out its charge. The NGRAC will present a summary of its concerns and recommendations to the Secretary by letter and request that the appropriate congressional committees and administration officials be advised.

NGRAC National Genetic Resources Advisory Council
Bldg. 005
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center - West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Phone: (301) 504-5059
FAX: (301) 504-546

Final Summary of Meeting December 15-16, 1992

1. The first meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held December 15-16, 1992 in Washington, DC. The NGRAC was chartered March 10, 1992 under USDA Departmental Regulation 1043-8 (attached) as directed by Section 1632 of P.L. 101-624, November 28, 1990 (attached). In attendance over the two day period were all nine appointed members and five of the seven ex officio members (lists attached). Neal Jorgensen was named as Chair of the Council by the Secretary.

2. Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, Duane Acker, welcomed the members and emphasized the critical importance of the Council to USDA and to the Nation. R. Dean Plowman, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) introduced Henry Shands, Associate Deputy Administrator for Genetic Resources and Director of the National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP). Members, resource persons, and guests were introduced. The detailed agenda was adopted (attached).

3. Henry Shands presented a brief overview of the functional organization structure of the USDA agencies involved in NGRP activities and the ARS staff structure (both attached) under which it is managed. He indicated that the NGRAC was presented an brief overview of the NGRP by the several resource persons coordinating the ad hoc life form committee reports used to develop the Initial Report to the Congress (draft attached). Further details are included in the ad hoc committee reports and the draft version of the Initial Report.

4. The National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) organization, the model used by Congress to formulate the legislation, was presented by Steve Eberhart, Director of the National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) at Fort Collins, Colorado. Dr. Eberhart discussed the role of the NPGS repositories handling the active seed and clonal collections and NSSL, housing the base collection and preservation research on seeds and other germplasm forms. A brief discussion of collection size and the concept of a core collection (see NAS/NRC recommendation) was presented. The other components consist of the elements of the National Germplasm Resources Laboratory managed by Allan Stoner to include the offices for plant exploration, plant introduction, plant quarantine conducted jointly with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) database managed by Jim Mowder.

5. David MacKenzie of the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) national program staff described the State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) efforts to establish a National Research Support Program (NRSP) with off-the-top national funding (funds captured for allocation at national level before distribution to the regional associations). The current effort consists of regional funding by the respective Director Associations to the four regional plant introduction stations and interregional funding to the potato introduction station. Over the past three years the effort to obtain the NRSP has failed mostly for lack of consensus as to what the management structure of the oversight committee would be and how that committee would function.

6. Council member Joe Howard of the National Agricultural Library introduced the subject of database in support of the genome mapping programs for agriculture. Noting the increasing need and that there has been no Departmental funding for the activity at the NAL, he recognized the specific but temporary funding being received from the ARS Plant Genome Program to develop the database which will be available over Internet. Doug Bigwood leads that development effort which is closely coordinated with the human genome database in the National Library of Medicine and databases at Jackson Laboratory (mouse) and at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Arabidopsis), and activities at other genome centers developing software being incorporated into the plant genome database structure. The critical need for the database was emphasized since the data from the genome projects are lingering in the scientists' computer files and are inaccessible outside of their laboratories for any purpose. NAL staff presented a computer demonstration of some of the windows/screens available to review data on the chromosomes, documented references and explained how the GRIN data on genebank accession will be linked into the database in the future once the GRIN3 version is installed.

7. Jim Mowder presented and Quinn Sinnott demonstrated an overview of the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) database used as both a database of information as well as a management tool. There are approximately 412,000 samples held in the National Plant Germplasm System along with over 2.5 million evaluation records which are accessible over Internet, FTS2000, and direct dial through modem connections. GRIN has recently developed a PC-GRIN program for individual users along with a CD-ROM version distributed with data on 25 crops. GRIN has 47 international users and has been active in developing compatible access with the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, India, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Korea among others. On other life forms, GRIN has initiated database efforts on animals and microbes.

8. Jerry Miksche (ARS), Director of the Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP), presented an overview of that program giving its status, accomplishments, and future. ARS funds are currently supporting database development at five species centers: soybean, maize, wheat, pine, and Arabidopsis. He described it as a gene hunting program as far as the mapping is concerned. Although the PGRP was conceived to reach approximately $50 million annual funding, it currently has approximately $15 million; this has resulted in a significant scaling back of the program. The recent Plant Genome I meeting in San Diego was noted for the enthusiasm of the researchers for the accomplishments to date. That meeting also noted that the need for a database initiative on the part of the department was critical.

9. Neal Jorgensen coordinated the development of the animal germplasm and animal genome reports. He presented the overview of the animal genome report and indicated that CSRS has now hired Richard Frahm as animal geneticist on the national program staff to lead that program effort. He introduced the need for support to species committees to accomplish the effort. Glenn Gray of the CSRS national program staff presented a summary of recent activities on the animal germplasm and genome, indicating the new effort to include minor breeds in the animal database. He expressed concern on the part of the scientists regarding the lack of a database to house the information of the genome program. Summary reports from Roger Gerrits (ARS germplasm coordinator) and Glenn Gray were distributed.

10. Ann Datko and Rosemary Grady of the CSRS National Research Initiative (NRI) program presented a detailed review of funding of the NRI program for genome mapping efforts on plants and animals, respectively. FY92 funding for plants has been $12.3 million and for animals $5.7 million. No line item exists for the animal genome effort. The Council took considerable interest in the letter developed by the Office of the General Counsel which provides guidance on the new requirement for scientists to deposit their genome data in the central database while protecting the intellectual property right option of their institution. The deadline for FY93 fund proposals for plants was December 15 and for animals January 11.

11. Ralph Bram (ARS) presented the program for insect genetic resources indicating the many important needs for a program on both beneficial and destructive insects. He noted that there was no current funding on insect genetic resources activities. So little work on insects has been done that considerable research is needed on fundamental aspects of storage to prevent loss, contamination, and genetic drift. Bram has recently completed a special study on the how to institute an insect genetic resources program and concluded it would not be cost effective to do so without conducting some critical and pioneering research in three areas: cryopreservation of insects using various insects as a model; storage of insect sperm in the spermotheca using honey bee a model, and; examination of the mechanisms of inducement of diapause using the pink bollworm as model.

12. Amy Rossman (ARS) presented the microbial report to the Council noting the many varied associations of microorganisms with beneficial and destructive relationships with all other life forms. Three scientist programs in ARS are involved with major microbial collections yet even these and small collections are supported from the research budgets. She noted that all microbial collections are underutilized because of lack of a database and support to disseminate material. The need for support for small collections was highlighted. The role of the American Type Culture Collection with its considerable support from NIH and NSF was noted but its mission is to maintain types and not multiple strains that might be acquired for some of the pathogenic organisms.

13. Michael Strauss reported on the status of the National Research Council study on Managing Global Genetic Resources. Two publications, one on the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System and the second on Forest Trees have been published. Copies were provided to the Council members. During 1993, two remaining volumes on Livestock and on Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies will be published. A special report on fish and shellfish will be published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

14. The Council took particular interest in the Federal budget process for funding a program that cross-cuts so many agencies' activities. Duane Acker and Henry Shands provided information on that process from the Department and Agency perspectives. Clearly, the process will support a sound, well documented program by the agencies through a budget initiative. The need for a Departmental budget cross-cutting all areas of the program was discussed as of considerable importance for the recognition of the activity.

15. Bob Herdt discussed the implications of U.S. interests in the voluntary donor program called the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The system exists because the donor organizations support it voluntarily; there is no treaty obligating donors to support it. Through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. provides funds along with a number of other donor countries and the World Bank for the core program at some 18 International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs). The IARCs deal principally with mandated food crops, two centers with livestock, and two with forest trees (including a new one in Indonesia, which is not operative). While the genetic resources activities are program related, the activity is considered a service and is of lower priority except within the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) which has a global genetic resources mandate. The IARCs are autonomous bodies of the CGIAR system. Of concern is the current downsizing of 10-25 percent funding across the IARCs due to the troubled economic times and reduced donor support. The germplasm responsibilities are taken very seriously but when budget cuts are made, the germplasm activities, like all others, are pared to the most essential. Each IARC which works with plants has a responsibility to use, store, and make available the germplasm. That responsibility has been mandated by the CGIAR and the independent boards for the species which fall within the mandate of each center. He noted that the U.S. depends (and the global interdependency) on plant genetic resources. Many species of interest to the United States are not included: grapes, peaches, apples, small fruits, and so on. He noted that there is no USDA agricultural representative on the donor team other than one economist assigned to USAID and felt that USDA should have a member from the genetic resources program on the delegation and that it should take more advantage of the opportunities offered. He urged that the USDA consider its vested interest in the global cooperative system and to be proactive in participation and support for funding to the global system activities.

16. Henry Shands provided a brief report on the international activities having potential future impact on the NGRP, namely the United Nations Environment Programme's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the potential changes to the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU). The CBD was noted to have included topics such as transfer of technology and information, and deals little with the conservation of biological diversity. While there is conflicting language, the Convention basically supports a bilateral arrangement of "mutually agreed terms". Shands had recently participated in one of five panels attempting to provide technical information (regarding matters to be resolved from Resolution 2 of the CBD) for the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) for its meeting in May 1993. He is most concerned with Article 15 dealing with access to genetic resources and suggests that mechanisms for handling genetic resources of importance to food and agriculture be handled separately from phytomedicinals and other biological resources. He mentioned the possibility of developing a compact among nations interested in assuring this open access to food plant genetic resources and the Council supported the idea that such an instrument be examined by the OGC with the intent to float it among such nations.

17. John Barton described to the NGRAC how recent events concerning intellectual property rights have complicated activities involving genetic resources. While developing countries are unhappy about an uncompensated flow of these resources to the developed world, he noted that they have an unrealistic expectation of the potential for financial compensation. He noted that from a practical standpoint, the IARCs are placed in a most difficult position since the developed resources are available to any interested agency to improve agricultural productivity, including private industry. In regard to the U.S. genebank policies, he feels that the NPGS may be overreading the patent law in terms of its shyness in not wanting to distribute protected material. He commented on the CBD noting the weakness of the conservation aspects of the treaty. He noted from the developing country point of view, access to genetic resources is their best bargaining chip and that the language about access to biotechnology led to the U.S. rejection of the Convention during the 'Earth Summit' at Rio de Janeiro in June. He noted that the CBD gives national sovereign rights to the genetic resources, perhaps the most important language, since the voluntary FAO IU provided unrestricted access. [However, the third amendment to the IU recognizes national sovereignty over plant genetic resources as well.] This allows a source country to have veto power in permitting the resources to leave the country. Shands noted that at the same time, the CBD respects the right of property ownership thereby potentially enabling transnational corporations to be the only way that genetic resources might be effectively moved from one country to another. Barton argued that the new administration should not necessarily give in to the condition of national sovereignty on agricultural genetic resources (as opposed to unrestricted access) and that U.S. negotiators should be advised so that changes in operating protocols for the CBD could establish that goal. The U.S. should, if possible, insist upon the free flow principle and there may be other nations feeling the same way. He suggested that a material transfer agreement (MTA) should be developed by OGC to help ensure that flow. He further feels that the U.S. should fund CGIAR activities at a higher level in support of that free flow and the benefits to U.S. agriculture. Val Giddings of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) who participated as a negotiator of the CBD generally supported Barton's viewpoints on the CBD and also believes that development of a mechanism for maintaining access to genetic resources of agricultural importance is essential. Giddings supported Barton's idea of the USDA providing the Department of State with a letter emphasizing its concerns. He did not want USDA to give up its right to help in negotiating for the importance of agricultural genetic resources as a special case from the general environmental concerns. He further supported the idea of an MTA to be examined by the OGC in order to have a firm proposal to discuss. Giddings raised the question whether the Keystone Center could continue to facilitate some further dialogues on this issue.

18. Robert Walton commented on international trade from the perspective of animal improvement. However, the activity with animals is not the same as with plants since the industry purchases the animals (or sperm or zygote) and brings them into the U.S. He noted that improved genetic resources are sent to many countries and that he has been involved with dairy herd and beef cattle improvement the world over. Many of those countries are now competitors with the U.S. as a result of those exchanges over the years. [The same can be said about improved crop varieties from the U.S. to other countries - HLS] His great concern is the displacement and loss of local breeds with the improved animals. Should there be a change in the climate or other significant impact on the environment, many valuable genetic resources may be lost.

19. Wayne Denney of the Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD) asked that the Council consider meeting between the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources meeting in mid-April and the FAO Council meeting in June to help develop U.S. policy comments on recommendations of the FAO Commission. He noted that the Commission will likely address followup issues related to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development's (UNCED) Agenda 21 activities affecting genetic resources; how to deal with pre-existing (CBD) ex-situ collections; the matter of prior informed consent when requesting genetic resources; national sovereignty as compared to unrestricted access; farmers' rights compared to breeders' rights; an International Code of Conduct on Plant Collecting and Germplasm Exchange; and perhaps the issue of renegotiating the IU which he noted to have three amendments already and some inconsistent with the CBD. The Council expressed its interest in being involved. Dean Plowman emphasized the importance of exchange from a long term perspective and noted that the demands on agriculture over the next half century and the doubling of the current 5.5 million population will require extraordinary effort by all to double the capacity to feed them. He emphasized that no one will benefit from the restrictions on access when food becomes in short supply due to natural disaster or other reason.

20. Don Duvick noted that free exchange means different things to different people. He feels that we might make better progress if we think of developing countries having marketable commodities. Open access does not necessarily mean free of cost. He suggests that use of marketplace principles could increase useful access to basic germplasm. Bob Herdt responded to a question regarding an economic analysis of the value of germplasm noting the difficulty since markets determine value and germplasm has had no market. Several efforts that have been conducted should not be looked to for a solution to the question of value. Shands noted that P.L. 101-624 states that the U.S. will make available upon request, without charge, and without regard to the country from which such a request originates, the genetic material which the program assembles [Sec. 1632 (d)(4)]. He expressed concern about having flexibility to exchange material under "mutually agreed" terms. Gordon Cragg of the National Cancer Institute's plant products program noted the need to separate the research and applied uses. The Letter of Intent provides NCI the opportunity to obtain phytomedicinal resources for test and evaluation while enabling the host country to benefit from commercialization of chemical products of importance. He noted the long and costly development and testing programs of the pharmaceutical industry. He further commented that the agricultural sector could likely move to a similar type of arrangement.

21. David Hurt commented on nutrition relative to the NGRP from the perspective of the food industry and multiple source diets. Noting that persons obtain their dietary balance from many foods, management of the choice of foods is more flexible than possibly responding through genetic modification of individual foods. Other more direct methods for effecting nutritional quality may have a more immediate impact than genetic manipulation. For example, the fat content of meat can be reduced directly by trimming and on a longer term basis by modifying feeding practices of the animals. He noted the recent FDA ruling that products developed by genetic manipulation should be evaluated on nutrient content rather than the genetic process itself. Consumers will respond favorably to genetically modified food stuffs when given sufficient information. He noted the recent ruling on the product content not the process and that consumers will respond if given sufficient information.

22. Stan Krugman with the Forest Service reported on the forest tree program noting that the U.S. is not gene poor and has few exotics. Nearly all commercial forest programs utilize native trees with the exception of some shelterbelt programs. He noted that the long life cycles contribute to the relatively small amount of genetic knowledge. Most of the native germplasm is stored in the wild and that no national policy exists on forest tree germplasm. While there is a real need to conduct research on storage and conservation measures, no funding has been allocated for that effort. He told the Council of the public's desire to not disturb the natural system of forests even though a managed forest is a healthier one and useful at the same time. The Forest Service programs are currently regional since they are based on ecosystems. He noted the need for better coordination of Federal, state and industry programs. Of some 3000 woody species only 1000 have commercial value and only 200 of those have had some form of genetic improvement. Like most of the other programs of the NGRP, there is no common database upon which to draw. The U.S. has aided some 80 countries in establishing U.S. species in commercial activities at no cost. He indicated the value of natural forests providing habitat for many wild relatives of plants and both in the U.S. and abroad and how management strategies could combine mutual interests of conservation and sustainable utilization. He indicated that plant collecting is permitted on forest lands but that a permit is required. Collecting in other countries has been quite open since most do not see a threat to their economies. Mike Greenwood commented on the health and competitiveness of U.S. forest tree agriculture where other nations have increased their capacities and are selling into the U.S.

23. Don Duvick raised the issue of communicating the information about the Council meeting to others. He questioned what vehicles were available, noting that DIVERSITY News Journal has done a good job in the past for plant germplasm issues. Henry Shands indicated that the reports could be sent to anyone who asks or to anyone the Council desires to receive it. Dave Lambert expressed concern that funding for DIVERSITY was in a tenuous situation and that assistance was needed to ensure its vitality. Henry Shands discussed the potential need for coordinating committees to serve each of the life forms. Only the ad hoc committee on insects did not made a specific recommendation in their report that such a committee was needed. A letter has been sent to the Office of General Counsel to determine the relationship of any such coordinating committees to this Council so as not to be in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

24. The Council wrapped up its activities with a discussion of its concerns and its next steps in grasping the structure and operation of the NGRP. It debated how to effectively communicate its findings and what to communicate. It questioned its full comprehension of the issues and expressed reluctance to commit to opinion on a number of issues at this time. It seeks to identify the issues of highest urgency and relativity to the NGRP to place on the agenda for the next meeting. The Council agreed to meet May 12-13, 1993. It asked that the Director provide - at least two weeks in advance of the meeting:

• a draft strategic plan for the NGRP to include organizational structure, visionary ideas for the program, long and short term goals, objectives and programmatic activities, priorities within and between life forms, and databases;
• a briefing paper (for discussion) on the status of the database effort and funding status;
• a briefing paper (for discussion) on access and exchange of genetic resources (taking into account the discussion on FAO, CBD, MTAs, etc.)
• a briefing paper (for discussion) concerning USAID support for international genetic resources activities, IARCs, etc.

25. Lastly, the Council decided to communicate its concerns and recommendations on the issues discussed at this meeting to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, and to the incoming Secretary. It will ask the Secretary to communicate its letter to the appropriate Congressional committees concerned with the NGRP. It further wishes to see a broad distribution of the summary of the meeting to ensure that the various constituencies are reached.

26. The Council reacted to the Chair's request that it provide a Vice-Chair to act in his absence and as counsel and elected Don Duvick. The NGRAC adjourned at 2:45 PM.

Return to: Meetings, NGRAC Home Page