Meeting Sept. 18-19, 1995 - National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC)

Executive Summary
Fifth Meeting Sept. 18-19, 1995

1. The fifth meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held September 18-19, 1995, in Washington, D.C. In attendance were all nine appointed members and five ex-officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by John Barton and Richard Lower serves as Vice Chair.

2. Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE), Karl Stauber, welcomed the Council and discussed the current status of the FY 96 budget, the Farm Bill Research Title package, and his views on the changes needed to justify and support agricultural programs in the current political environment. He challenged the Council to develop a new concept with increased focus and involve a broader constituency. Dr. Stauber indicated his interest in taking a well-thought out and compelling program for stronger budget support.

3. The Council heard reports on the USDA's aquaculture program from Dr. Meryl Broussard (CSREES). Concern was expressed about the narrow genetic base and preservation of the genetic integrity of the brood stocks. An overview of preservation technologies for insect collections by Dr. Roger Leopold (ARS) described recent and ongoing successes in cryopreservation of insects and focused on the potential for an effective cryopreservation approach for managing stock collections. Dr. John Matuszak (DOS-OES) reported on the FAO's June meeting of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the renegotiation of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and noted no substantive progress. He also reported on the September meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technology and Technological Advice and noted that the U.S., as a non-party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, has reduced influence on activities proposed. Dr. Rob Bertram (USAID) discussed the status of material transfer agreements for the international agricultural research centers. Dr. Wolfgang Siebeck provided an overview of the study on an international multilateral plant germplasm system as requested of the CGIAR by FAO. Dr. Robin Schoen of the National Research Council reported on a meeting to consider the status of microbial collections in the U.S. and the proposal to conduct a full study on the situation.

4. Member Dr. Richard Lower presented a case study of the current potato late blight disease situation with the assistance of plant pathologist, Dr. Ken Deahl (ARS). The complexity of the commercial issue to retain market quality potatoes for the industry makes reliance on chemical control a priority. However, in the long term, the potential of new strains of the pathogen from intermating of the two major strains, A1 and A2, make a breeding objective imperative. Molecular biologist, Dr. Barbara Baker (ARS), described research from her and other laboratories about the discovery of a new class of disease resistance genes. She discussed how this type of research could play a role in the quest for late blight resistance.

5. The Council debated the shape and substance of a strategic plan for the National Genetic Resources Program. The ongoing effort in the USDA to develop strategic plans for all agencies to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act provided a starting point for discussion. The Council decided that members would develop the components to be placed in an appendix.

6. The Council discussed the timing and agenda for the next meeting. The agenda will focus on natural ecosystems, review of the strategic plan, communications, and an update on the international situation. The meeting will be held in Washington, February 14-15, 1996, following the AAAS meeting in Baltimore. The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.NGRACNational Genetic Resources Advisory Council Bldg 005, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center - West Beltsville, Maryland 20705 Telephone: (301) 504-5059; FAX: (301) 504-6699 

Final Summary of Fifth Meeting
September 18-19, 1995

1. The fifth meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held September 18-19, 1995, in Washington, D.C. In attendance were all nine appointed members and five ex-officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by John Barton and Richard Lower serves as Vice Chair.

2. The Council was welcomed by Dr. Karl Stauber, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE) who noted that his confirmation hearing was held at the time of the May meeting. He indicated the current activity in Congress to complete the FY 96 budget and a new effort to move a Farm Bill package of the Research Title and its authorities. He discussed the current budget situation in Washington and the importance of guidance from the Council. He suggested that the Council develop the draft strategic plan, suggest an aggressive program, and articulate the benefits by describing the accomplishments of the past and projecting the potential benefits for the future. Dr. Stauber indicated his interest in taking a well-thought out and compelling program for stronger budget support. He noted that he meets frequently with commodity groups who need to support the program. Most important, he said, is the changing nature of the Congress in respect to the Agriculture and Agricultural Appropriation Committees on both sides of the aisle. With the increasingly urban constituency of the members, the program will have to be sold on strong benefits to both the Congress and the American public. On the issue of coordination, he saw little possibility of cooperation on activities where the agencies are competing for the same monies. He answered many questions by Council members regarding various aspects of selling the program.

3. Henry Shands, Director of the National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP), was asked to describe the current status of the strategic plan. He began by describing the current Agricultural Research Service (ARS) effort to develop its Departmental strategic plan (STP), a requirement of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). A 5-year strategic plan must be in place by September 30, 1997, and a draft is due to the USDA by the end of December 1995. The strategic plan requires: mission statement covering major functions and operations; general goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives for the major functions and operations; a description of how goals and objectives are to be achieved; a description of performance goals to be included in the plan; identification of key external factors; description of program evaluations used in establishing or revising general goals and objectives; and a description of the program evaluations used in establishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a schedule for future program evaluations. In addition, Executive Order 12862 requires identification of customers/users, kinds and quality of services desired, and establishment of standards and measures. The Chief Financial Officer's Act also requires the establishment of performance measures and indicators and those must be a component part of the budget submission beginning in FY 99. Shands described the Agency's effort and the potential need for the NGRP strategic plan to fit with the Agency's format. He circulated the budget cited in the 1992 Initial Report and one dated June 1995 to show the funding changes since the Initial Report. Council members agreed to provide Shands with brief writeups and input on a revised strategic plan as an appendix update to the NGRP Initial Report.

4. Meryl Broussard, National Program Leader for Aquaculture with CSREES, presented an overview of the aquaculture program. Aquaculture grown fish constitute 15-20 percent of world fish consumption. U.S. is a net importer with an annual $3.7 billion trade deficit, with 60 percent of edible seafood in the U.S. imported on only a 15 pound/capita consumption. The U.S. farm production, supplying 10 percent of U.S. seafood needs, grew with the domestication of the channel catfish, the fastest growing species effort. The Federal Joint Sub-Committee on Aquaculture which started in the early 1980s has had little impact on the budget. CSREES spends about $1.5 million per year on aquaculture. Dr. Broussard identified some of the key genetic research issues to improve production efficiency, including genetic resources (germplasm preservation technologies, molecular genetics including strain identification, and broodstock development), health management, reproduction and early development, and growth, development and nutrition. The industry has developed populations with wild stock but future development is limited with this source. Maintenance of the genetic integrity of the fish broodstock populations is an issue facing breeders today as new strains are released. ABRAC has developed standards for fish transgenics where there is considerable interest. Land, labor and climate are the major limitations on expansion.

5. John Matuszak, Biodiversity Conservation Officer, Department of State, OES, reported on the lack of substantive progress of the international negotiations to revise the United Nations Food and Agriculture's (FAO) International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU) at FAO held June 17-30, 1995, and on the first meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technology and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) Conference of Parties (COP) held September 4-7, 1995, at Paris. The U.S. is a member of the FAO Commission (CPGR) but is not a member of the Conference of Parties to the Convention, where the U.S. participated in an Observer status. He noted that little progress was made at FAO where the Commission concentrated on scope, access, and farmers' rights, the most contentious issues.

6. Dr. Rob Bertram, Agricultural Science Specialist, USAID, discussed material transfer agreements (MTAs), a residual matter for the Council, in the context of the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) where the Centers had a proposed request form and shipping notice presented to the Commission. The Council requested information on how the USDA was handling this matter. It was explained that the Order Processing Form shipping document has a passive statement but that no active signatures are required to receive germplasm. The Council expressed concern about Senate draft language to the revision to the Farm Bill which would alter the free flow distribution requirements for germplasm from the USDA. USAID and USDA will follow up on that matter. Dr. Wolfgang Siebeck, Legal Consultant to the IARCs, indicated that a small task force is developing a white paper on implementation of a multilateral plant germplasm system which was requested by the CPGR. He believes that for a free exchange system some type of compensation such as a fund or bilateral arrangement will have to be included.

7. In genetic resources issues at the SBSTTA meeting, Matuszak indicated that ownership of genetic resources came up in the technology transfer area. One proposal was to use 1500 A.D. as the base line year. He noted that many countries are interested in laws governing access to genetic resources, particularly Latin America and Malaysia. In Latin America, the IUCN is aiding the Cartagena Accord countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) prepare national legislation on the implementation of the CBD. Brief questions of the Council to Matuszak concerned how many countries have established national legislation, the relation to farmers' rights and indigenous knowledge, and patents. Matuszak indicated that many of the issues will arise at COP-2 in November. Council Member Mike Balick, who directs the National Cancer Institute's contract program at the New York Botanical Garden, noted the increased difficulty in gaining access to biological diversity in Latin America and the program reduction.

8. Robin Schoen, Staff Officer, U.S. National Committee for the International Union of Microbiological Societies, National Academy of Sciences, discussed the status of the report of the microbial meeting held at the Academy in March 1995. She indicated that funding organizations need to be convinced that the meeting was held to determine if there had been any significant negative changes, the dimensions of the problem, and new opportunities. Issues of biotechnology and biodiversity are driving the concerns. The meeting and report examined numerous aspects and asked that the NAS consider: loss of germplasm, collections management, funding structure, and maximizing use and benefit. It is not determined yet that the Academy will conduct a study since that will require consultations with the biotechnology industry and Federal agencies that might fund such a study. The Council raised a number of questions concerning use of cryopreservation technology (not all organisms), duplication of collections (some for security), in-situ approach (inaccessibility), DNA storage (future), number (huge), and broad use base. Funding was noted to be a problem in many examples.

9. Roger Leopold, ARS Research Entomologist at Fargo, North Dakota, presented a discussion of preservation technologies for insect collections with a focus on successes with cryopreservation for effectively managing stock collections. He noted stock centers maintain 680 species at 263 sites and that there are problems of catastrophic loss as well as genetic drift within. He focused on critical points in cryopreservation whether to freeze or not to freeze: cooling rate, warming rate, cell dehydration, and cryopreservatives. He noted that cryopreservation does not currently work on Diptera species and discussed barriers: permeability, yolk system, chilling sensitivity of the yolk, stage sensitivity, and reproductive biology. As with other organisms, lipids are very important in the protocols for the low temperature storage. Vitrification is the critical technology for cryopreservation: fast cooling to reach the glass phase without formation of ice crystals. He noted that some species respond well, such as Drosophila which has 80-85 percent embryo hatch getting to 40-45 percent adults while others are currently less, such as Musca, with 5-15 percent embryo hatch survival. He noted the work on other organisms with other preservation technologies and that the storage cost of the many laboratories is very high. In response to the Council's questions and discussion, he focused on the limiting technologies: need for refinement of the cryopreservation technique even for the most common species and the lack of uniform diets. The need for a research thrust of critical mass and significant duration is important for any genetic resources program.

10. The Council heard a case study report on genetic resources from member Richard Lower on the current Late Blight of Potato situation. Dr. Lower is Administrative Advisor to the Interregional Potato Introduction Station Project (NRSP-6). Recent meetings of the technical workers on potato have focused on the advance of the new mating type, A2 (US-8), its mix with the A1, and the impact on crop susceptibility and control measures, where previous fungicides have now failed. He noted that several new European fungicides are cleared for temporary use but that they are very expensive ($35/ac) compared to metylaxyl ($5/ac) and Ridomil ($18/ac) and that farmers cannot afford to make many applications. Late blight is temperature and moisture sensitive, and the 1994 and 1995 seasons have affected growing regions reversely. There is considerable genetic resistance which is holding up in the Toluca Valley of Mexico where the mating strains put great pressure on the genetic resistances. Photographic evidence was circulated of outstanding resistance of somatic fusion between Solanum bulbocastanum and S. tuberosum germplasm created by Dr. John Helgeson (USDA-ARS at Madison, Wisconsin). But, tubers are small and selection must be made for commercially acceptable attributes along with many other agronomic traits, including many other disease resistances. Plant pathologist Dr. Ken Deahl (USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Maryland) discussed some of the uniqueness of the mating strains, difficulties in challenging the resistances, the field sanitation issue, and some of the international issues, including the International Potato Center (CIP) program on durable resistance. He noted that tripling the available test area of five acres available in Mexico is very desirable.

11. The expectations for a quick fix to the potato late blight situation are few except to rely on chemicals. Breeding costs for a single scientist at $250,000 for 8 years is $2 million. That cost, multiplied across the country for the many State and Federal programs results in considerable cost through the breeding approach. For the processing industry, which is very satisfied with current quality attributes, change through breeding is not very satisfactory since it will likely affect important quality traits and take one to two decades to develop an acceptable cultivar with late blight resistance. They prefer the chemical (dependency) approach so they can keep the processing quality they have learned to manage. The practical reality of the situation presents many conflicts in approach and policy.

12. Molecular biologist, Dr. Barbara Baker (USDA-ARS, Albany, California), described her and others' research relating to the molecular basis of hypervirulence and subsequent systemic acquired resistance responses in plants. The combined works focused on a new class of N (necrosis) genes which function across a wide range of host plants (tobacco, tomato, arabidopsis, flax) and pathogens (viruses, fungi, and bacteria). She noted that this new class of genes has similar genetic sequences and sometimes many repeat units in the active region. The R (resistance) gene in tobacco has three domains similar to the other resistances: leucine rich repeats (LRR), nucleotide binding sites (NBS), and their cytoplasmic domain. The R genes recognize the pathogen, induce a rapid (hypersensitive) resistance reaction (HR), and induce systemic acquired resistance (SAR) type which brings local lesion response that lasts weeks to months against all classes of pathogens, including normally virulent pathogens. The Council discussed with Dr. Baker various implications of the work, how it might be brought to bear upon the potato late blight problem, backup systems in plants, and issues of host-parasite interaction and genetic code in the pathogen, as described by H.H. Flor on flax rust. The Council was impressed with Dr. Baker's strong, positive response to a question regarding the need for the several genetic stock centers and genomic databases which she and others had accessed. She indicated that without those support services the many scientists involved could not have done their research. The work is reported in the May 5, 1995, issue of Science 268:661-667.

13. The Council discussed issues that the Chair and Vice Chair would present to Deputy Secretary Rominger. The Council prioritized the new concept issues as follows:

1) importance of genetic resources program to food production, nutrition, conservation, and competitiveness of U.S. industry (noting the integration of genomics and biotechnology and having the genetic resources available);

2) coordination of the genome and genebank programs at both the crop and administration levels, forestry in-situ (ex-situ where needed), and animals including aquaculture;

3) critical research (better preservation mechanisms, genomics, core collections, nationalizing microbial and insect collections, and the need for an IPA to put together a national enhancement program as proposed by ESCOP); and

4) funding coordination for the programs within the USDA, including a temporary person from SAES to develop a coordinating linkage. The meeting with USDA Deputy Secretary Rominger included REE Under Secretary Karl Stauber, Associate Deputy Chief for Research, U.S. Forest Service, Barbara Weber, and Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Paul Johnson, and from the Council, Barton, Lower, and Shands. Mr. Rominger asked that the Council present its recommendations in writing which John Barton agreed to do. John Barton provided a summary of the meeting to the Council.

14. The Council discussed aspects of the current program and its relation to the natural ecosystems in relation to forests and lands. Concerns over land management were expressed relative to forests, loss of indigenous species within, and the replanting of uniform forest stands. Farmland management was noted to be financially influenced by farm incentive programs even when it was not cost effective to be farming some (prairie) land. It was noted that the Council has been rather conventional relative to programs serving breeders, genebanks, and industry and that its vision should be broadened to include the environment and sustainable agriculture which would increase the support base. The initiative for the National Institute for the Environment (NIE) was cited as an example of one with broad industry and individual support. The issue of broadening the vision and increasing the support base is a point for focus at the next meeting.

15. The Council took advantage of the presence of Deborah Strauss, managing editor of DIVERSITY News Journal, to discuss the historical development of the journal. It received considerable support from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, at its inception in 1982, and subsequently, to present pivotal issues on genetic resources in U.S. agriculture. Later, in addition to its subscription base, it received sustained support from USDA, Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, and numerous corporations and foundations. In particular, it was noted that its journalistic autonomy, while bringing out important issues in an impartial manner, had developed a high level of credibility for the journal. It has been seen as an important vehicle for communication in the international community. The question was raised whether DIVERSITY was helping in the communications with Congress, particularly with a smaller farm base electorate, and the relatively few subscriptions provided. The journal has failed to develop a subscription base large enough to allow it to be self-supporting. The future of the journal is in jeopardy unless firm base of support is developed. It was further questioned about its objectives and policies as determined by its board of directors. Other issues raised concerned the use of electronic publishing, production cost, newsletter approach such as by the genetic stock centers, and the use of the World Wide Web.

16. On the matter of communications, the Council discussed the timing and agenda for the next meeting. Matters for the agenda are to be focused on natural ecosystems and partnerships, review of the strategic plan, communications, and an update on the international situation. Most preferred to meet following the Plant Genome IV Symposium in San Diego, January 18-19, 1996, with a second choice to meet following the AAAS meeting in Baltimore, February 14-15, 1996. Since the ex-officio members of the Council and several possible invitees for the natural ecosystem discussion are all in the Washington area and funding for their travel was not calculated into the FY 1996 budget, it was later determined that the meeting would be held in Washington, February 14-15, 1996. The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

Prepared by Henry L. Shands
September 20, 1995
Edited by NGRAC

Return to: Meetings, NGRAC Home Page