Meeting September 29-30, 1998 - National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC)
Executive Summary
Seventh Meeting September 29-30, 1998
1. The seventh meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council
(NGRAC) was held September 29-30, 1998, in Room 3109 of the USDA's South
Building at 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, D.C. In attendance were eight
of the nine appointed members and six ex-officio members or their designates.
The ninth member participated via speaker phone during parts of the meeting.
Dr. Eileen Kennedy, Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics (REE), represented the Secretary's office. Richard Lower was selected
by Under Secretary I.M. Gonzalez to chair the Council. The focus of the meeting
was to be on an update of the status of the germplasm and genome activities of
the Department and recommendations to Deputy Secretary Rominger on actions to
improve the National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP).
2. Dr. Kennedy welcomed the Council and highlighted current events and
issues of relevance and importance to the Council. These included the House and
Senate Conference Committee action on the 1999 Appropriations Bill. The
genomics area had considerable support in consideration of national and global
food and humanitarian needs. (The Council learned that the $120 million was not
appropriated.) Dr. Kennedy presented the needs for considerable investment in
agricultural research after years of no substantial increases.
3. The Council heard reports on the National Genetic Resources Program
components dealing with plant, microbial and animal germplasm and genome from
the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Service program leaders. The area of genomics received the most
attention in the discussion and members expressed concern about capacity
building for the 1890 and Tribal colleges in the USDA's germplasm and genome
programs.
4. Dr. Melinda Kimble, Department of State, presented a gloomy update on the
status of the FAO negotiations on a revised International Undertaking (IU) on
Plant Genetic Resources at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations and on the biosafety negotiations under the Conference of
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The U.S. is
questioning where the negotiations on the IU are going. The U.S. has not
ratified the CBD where the activities will take place if they fail at the FAO
which will place the U.S. at a disadvantage to help influence the result. The
Council expressed interest in reviewing the U.S. benefit sharing arrangements
with other countries.
5. The GAO report on "The Status of the National Plant Germplasm
System" was the subject of considerable summary discussion. In addition,
the Executive Director of the American Seed Trade Association, Dean Urmston,
announced their new program to gain a doubling of the NPGS budget by 2002.
Kellye Eversole of Eversole Associates will be hired for two years to assemble
a plan and promote it to the Administration and Congress to get the necessary
funding. The Council reacted positively to the initiative and developed a
recommendation in support.
6. Some Council members expressed concern about the USDA's patent with
industry on the technology protection system that prevents seed from
germinating. They noted that this would be disadvantageous to small and medium
size farmers and developed a resolution expressing interest that USDA not take
actions to that effect. They were pleased that ARS has announced that it will
review actions in biotechnology that review potential impacts before
undertaking the research. Resolutions of the Seventh Meeting of the National
Genetic Resources Council
1: The NGRAC recommends that the following research areas, which
are unlikely to be the subject of industry research, but are important for
public sector research, should be identified as components of any Request for
Proposals (RFP): 1) foster characterization and understanding of the germplasm
collections of all life forms; 2) increase efficiency of collection,
maintenance and establishment of core collections; 3) evaluate wild relatives;
and 4) enhance technologies necessary to enable gene enrichment of collections.
2: The NGRAC again recommends that the USDA develop an overall strategic
plan for genetic resources research that involves agriculture and includes a
roadmap for genomics that defines the relationship between intra- and
extra-mural programs.
3: The NGRAC recommends that the USDA collaborate and cooperate with the
American Society of Microbiology to develop the microbial component of the
strategic plan for genetic resources.
4: The NGRAC recommends that the USDA involve informatics experts in the
design and implementation of new genomic centers and that their recommendations
be transmitted to and implemented as soon as possible in existing database
centers.
5: The NGRAC recommends that the directors of the NPGS collections and
facilities identify opportunities to involve small and medium size farms in
their programs, including seed preservation and propagation efforts.
6: The NGRAC recommends future efforts of the NGRP to improve linkages with
local efforts of grassroot conservation organizations including, for example,
the backup of heirloom seed collections in appropriate NPGS facilities and the
inclusion of rare breeds in the plans for security backup for animal genetic
resources.
7: The NGRAC recommends that the Department capitalize on the ASTA
initiative by ensuring that the Administration puts forth an initiative to
accomplish this objective.
8: The NGRAC recommends that ESCOP and USDA coordinate support of graduate
education in disciplines related to genetic resources and be directed to both
U.S. and international students, especially students from developing countries
that are major sources of agriculturally-important germplasm.
9: The NGRAC recommends that the USDA take appropriate action to increase
the involvement of 1890 and 1994 institutions in programs involving the
management of variability existing in the existing gene pools of the NGRP. The
Council suggests that its members initiate this activity by making contact with
organizations such as the 1890 Association of Research Directors which provides
overall governance for agricultural research carried out in the 1890
institutions and similarly the parallel organizations for the Hispanic Serving
Institutions and 1994 Tribal colleges.
10: The NGRAC strongly recommends the continued participation of the U.S. in
the international negotiations and that, within the existing legal frameworks,
the U.S. continue to foster the sharing of benefits related to genetic
resources between the U.S. and other countries.
Previous NGRAC recommendations that were reaffirmed:
Recommendation on Material Transfer Agreements. The NGRAC
recommends that, in addition to participating in the various UN negotiations
affecting access to genetic resources, the U.S. encourage, directly or in
cooperation with the CGIAR community, negotiation among a combination of
developing and developed nations toward model material transfer agreements for
the acquisition and transfer of agricultural germplasm. May 1995.
Recommendations for Animal Germplasm. The NGRAC recommends that: 1)
the National Animal Germplasm Program Leader (ARS) and the National Animal
Germplasm Coordinating Committee develop a plan for the management of animal
germplasm, including a) priorities for germplasm storage at the ARS animal
germplasm genebank at Beltsville, Maryland, b) database, c) linkage of
germplasm database with the genome database, d) mechanisms for use of the
stored germplasm, and e) identification of needed research; and 2) USDA/ARS
obtain needed funding to service and maintain the Beltsville germplasm storage
facility, in accordance with this plan, as the primary site for the National
Animal Germplasm Repository and that a backup site be established for long-term
storage of animal germplasm. May 1995.
Recommendation 1. A person, perhaps on detail or loan from a university,
should be appointed for 12-18 months to assist the Director of the National
Genetic Resources Program (NGRP) in development and completion of a strategic
plan for the program (including collection, conservation, and dissemination
activities as well as closely related genomic and germplasm research
activities) and definition of any new procedures that may be needed for
implementation of the plan. Among the tasks to be undertaken by this person are
inventorying current genetic resource activities, examination of operational
subcommittee structures for specific categories of genetic resources, and
consideration of communications and data-base systems for germplasm and genomic
information. This person should work in close coordination with the National
Genetic Resources Advisory Council and with the committee described in the next
recommendation. March 1996.
Recommendation 2. There should be appointed a standing, interagency
committee within the United States Department of Agriculture consisting of
agency heads and/or their empowered designees to be charged with assisting the
Director of the NGRP in coordinating the activities of their agencies in
respect to this Program. Specific members of this committee should be
responsible for developing and maintaining understanding of all government and
private genetic resource activities involving organisms such as forest trees,
microbes, and aquatic plants and animals, in which there are many important
activities outside the Department. This committee could usefully be a
subcommittee of the planned REE Policy Council; it should report on its
activities at least once a year to the National Genetic Resources Advisory
Council. March 1996.
Recommendation 3. To assist in coordinating the National Genetic Resources
[Advisory] Program and related activities throughout the Department, the
Department should create an annual cross-cutting budget compilation of proposed
and actual Department expenditures on genetic resources (defined as above to
include collection, conservation, and dissemination activities as well as
closely related genomic and germplasm research activities). This total should
be made public and it and its breakdown should be made available to the
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council after the budget has been presented
by the President to Congress. March 1996.
Recommendation 4. In order to provide increased programmatic and budgetary
emphasis on the National Genetic Resources [Advisory] Program and to strengthen
the Department's participation in international discussions affecting genetic
resources, the Agricultural Research Service should establish the activities of
this program as one of its primary independent categories. The Program Director
should have both overall program responsibility for the entire program and
specific budgetary responsibility for the Agricultural Research Service
components. March 1996.
Summary of Seventh Meeting September 29-30, 1998
1. The seventh meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council
(NGRAC) was held September 29-30, 1998, in Room 3109 of the USDA's South
Building at 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, D.C. In attendance were eight
of the nine appointed members and six ex-officio members or their designates.
The ninth member participated via speaker phone during parts of the meeting.
Dr. Eileen Kennedy, Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics (REE), represented the Secretary's office. Richard Lower was selected
by Under Secretary I.M. Gonzalez to chair the Council. The focus of the meeting
was to be on an update of the status of the germplasm and genome activities of
the Department and recommendations to Deputy Secretary Rominger on actions to
improve the National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP).
2. After the opening of the meeting by Chair Lower and introductions of the
members and other persons present, Dr. Kennedy welcomed the Council and
highlighted current events and issues of relevance and importance to the
Council. These included the House and Senate Conference Committee action on the
1999 Appropriations Bill which was taking place on September 29 since the
President spoke to the topic of research on June 23 in the formal signing of
the authorization bill on the agriculture research title. The research bill has
six emphasis areas of which genomics is the first mentioned and the current
appropriations bill has language for $120 million for each of the next five
years. The genomics area had considerable support in consideration of national
and global food and humanitarian needs. (The Council learned that the $120
million was not appropriated.) Dr. Kennedy presented the needs for considerable
investment in agricultural research after years of no substantial increases.
3. Henry Shands, Director of the NGRP, called upon Dr. Peter Bretting of the
ARS National Program Staff to present the report on the National Plant
Germplasm System and the Microbial Germplasm program. Dr. Bretting discussed
the findings of the GAO report of October 1997 which identified the need for
additional acquisition of many crop plant species and the need to enter more
data in the ARS Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) database
(http://www.ars-grin.gov). Both ARS and GAO acknowledged the insufficient funds
to do all of the activities expected of the NPGS. Among the deficiencies is the
need to backup existing germplasm and to regenerate new seeds of approximately
one-third of the collections. Dr. Bretting noted that new sites at Parlier,
California for regeneration and at Palmer, Alaska for high latitude and
bioremediation germplasm are under development. He noted that the three large
microbial collections (industrial and patent collections at Peoria, IL; the
entomopathogenic collection at Ithaca, NY; Rhizobium collection at Beltsville,
MD) managed by ARS got significant extra funding during the year and that the
Patent Collection at Peoria, Illinois had gotten authorization to expend the
fees that they collect from the depositors.
4. Dr. Kennedy discussed the efforts of the Interagency Working Group on
Plant Genomics (IWG) involving the National Science Foundation, National
Institutes of Health, USDA, and the Office of Management and Budget. She
discussed the agreements to sharing resources and database information. She
congratulated the National Science Foundation on it cooperative spirit in the
handling of the grants process. She noted the need to involve and interact more
with the private sector to avoid duplication and to deal with the ownership
issues which confront the future of genome research. She advised the Council
that they would be important in the future meetings with industry and seeing
the public involvement in determining the future for the program. The USDA's
part of the program is awaiting the final appropriations level for FY1999
before finalization. Plant genome areas will focus on increased yield, disease
and pest resistance and improved quality. Animal genome focus will include
reproductive and lactation performance and disease resistance. She noted that
the Arabidopis sequencing research will be completed by the year 2000.
Agriculture will take the lead on the rice genome research and include
approximately ten major crops including the corn and soybean sequencing efforts
(expressed sequence tags=ESTs) initiated in the NSF grants. Another area of
importance is informatics. The IWG will review the ARS database portfolio and
try to strengthen it where possible. But, that is not the total of informatic
activities to be done. She noted that she will co-chair a meeting at the
International Centers' Week at the end of October 1998 to plan for a meeting in
this spring of 1999 on how the U.S. can more effectively cooperate with the
international agricultural research centers (IARCs). In the intellectual
property rights area, she noted that the sharing of information with the
private sector may be difficult but that negotiations are underway to discuss
this in an open and honest fashion. She believes that there is much to be
gained from resolving the matters openly and as soon as possible.
5. Dr. Michael Ruff, Deputy Director of ARS' Office of Technology Transfer,
presented an overview of the some of the concerns involving technology transfer
and sensitive issues. The Technology Protection System, developed by ARS in a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Delta and Pine Land
Company (DP&L) has received considerable negative attention by groups
working with developing country farmers and with small and medium size farms in
the U.S. ARS was a codeveloper and thus has equal say in how it will be
sub-licensed. The law provides that the cooperator under a CRADA has the right
to an exclusive license to products developed. The particular issue is the
patented "Technology Protection System" of which the ARS and DP&L
are co-owners. The TPS is a system of three interacting genes, one of which
when activated by a chemical treatment to the seed, prevents the seed from
germinating. Seed companies can thus protect their research investment by
inserting the system into proprietary materials. The Council raised questions
about the impact on the right of farmers to save seed and about the involvement
of a public agency in developing this type of technology. The Council did
express its pleasure with the ARS decision to evaluate research leading to new
technologies such as the Technology Protection System that may influence the
viability of small and medium sized farms.
6. A report from ARS on its plant genome activities by Dr. Bretting noted
its focus on the databases. Additional funding to the database groups at
Columbia, Missouri, Ames, Iowa, Albany, California, and Ithaca, New York has
been provided. A critical review of the Agency's Plant Genome Program was
conducted in April 1997 and was made available to the NGRAC. The report charged
that considerable change was needed to keep up with advances in technology of
databases and advocated new approaches to the Program by developing syntenic
group centers and signifcantly more funding.
7. The status of the Animal Germplasm and Genome Program was provided
through a report by Dr. Roger Gerrits who has recently retired from ARS. The
Council had recommended the development of a long term storage genebank for
animal germplasm. ARS has now developed this laboratory but has not received
funding to operate it or conduct research on storage technologies. The Council
renewed its concern that this program is not advancing. The FY 1999 budget had
funding included to support the animal germplasm database. Dr. Shands indicated
that FAO has developed a Domestic Animal Database Information System (DAD-IS).
The need to link it to the USDA GRIN homepage was noted and this was
immediately accomplished. The ARS Meat Animal Research Center at Clay Center,
Nebraska published low level short sequence tag (SST) maps of the cattle and
swine genomes and are now locating important traits using those markers. The
animal genome activities are hoped to be included in a future USDA agricultural
genome effort.
8. Dr. Marsha Stanton, Program Leader for Plant Breeding and Genetics in the
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), presented
on a number of programs underway in the state agricultural experiment stations
(SAES). She highlighted the Iowa State University (ISU) special report
publications "National Plant Breeding Studies-I, II, and III" that
were developed and led by retired Professor Ken J. Frey of ISU. The first is
entitled "Human and financial resources devoted to plant breeding research
and development in the United States in 1994". The second, "National
plan for promoting breeding programs for minor crops in the U.S." and the
third, "National plan for genepool enrichment of U.S. crops" both
have funding initiatives associated with them. The first continues the
documentation to show the trends in plant breeding employment from the public
to the private sector. The data are quite compelling since Frey had a 97.5
percent return on the questionnaire showing an increase of 32 plant breeding
SYs per year from 1990-1994 in the private sector, a gain of 2.4% per year. At
the same time, the SAES were losing 2.5 SY per year. The NPBS-III study
contains a summary of the priority enhancement activities of the USDA's Crop
Germplasm Committees which also responded to the needs of the GAO
questionnaire. Issues of education and training were discussed in respect to
the shift and loss of critical mass in the universities and SAES. Needs for
increasing funding to the CSREES fellowship program and enlisting industry
support at the university level were suggested as considerations. Dr. Stanton
also described a new study being conducted on the handling of intellectual
property rights in the SAES which is examining the licensing and royalty
arrangements.
9. Dr. Richard Frahm, National Program Leader for Animal Genetics for
CSREES, reported on the status of the National Animal Genome Research Program
(Regional Project NRSP-8). This project, initiated in 1993, has achieved
remarkable success in mapping the genomes of cattle, sheep, swine, poultry and
horses. International collaboration was emphasized from the beginning and has
resulted in the development of internationally shared databases for each of the
species and accessible on the World Wide Web. The U.S. nodes are located at
Texas A&M University (cattle, sheep and horses) and Iowa State University
(swine and poultry). Annual Technical Committee meetings are held in
conjunction with the Plant and Animal Genome Conference held in San Diego,
California each January. NRSP-8 has been renewed for an additional 5 years. In
1998, Regional Project NE-186 was established to map the genomes of aquaculture
species. Dr. Frahm noted the growing and major concern for preserving novel
animal populations (many of which are the product of years of genetic research)
and rare breeds. He praised the effort initiated by the University of
California-Davis to save endangered poultry germplasm. This effort is
complicated because of the difficulty in preserving poultry semen and embryos.
The Council reflected on the potential for heightened conflict internationally
regarding animal genetic resources and also the potential benefits of cloning
technology for conserving endangered breeds.
10. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans,
Environment and International Science (OES), Melinda Kimble, addressed the
Council on the status of international negotiation on the International
Undertaking (IU) at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations and the Biosafety Protocol being negotiated under the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD). The FAO negotiations are attempting to resolve
issues of access related to agricultural genetic resources that were not
addressed in the CBD by developing a multilateral system of access instead of
the bilateral system created by the CBD where concepts of prior informed
consent and mutually agreed terms to benefit sharing are embedded in CBD
Article 15. At the FAO negotiations, developing countries were noted to be
focused on financial compensation for access and utilization of their
germplasm. They do not acknowledge access as a benefit. Developed countries
including the U.S. are concerned about the genetic resources in the IARC
collections which could be affected by the FAO negotiations, including
prescriptive conditions for access. The IARCs are already using material
transfer agreements as conditions to access their collections, a policy
decision the U.S. opposed as restrictive and adding to the cost of operating a
global system. At the beginning of the FAO negotiations, the U.S. proposed that
open access to all crops would be in the best interests of countries. There was
no support for this position, nor for the subsequent proposal for facilitated
access to crops held in-situ and an open access to those in ex-situ collections
including those in the IARCs. The proposal of a limited list focused on the
crops essential to world food security, mainly those crops of the large IARC
collections. Several countries have added suggestions to increase the list but
the list is only tentative and not negotiated at this time. In addition, many
countries are seeking to condition access even to this limited list of
resources. Further, regarding the issue of international recognition for
farmers' rights, there is an attempt to override the UPOV and the Agreement on
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). While the U.S.
supports the Global Plan of Action negotiated at Leipzig as a means to further
farmers' efforts, this in and of itself is insufficient since the international
recognition of farmers' rights is a bottom line demand of many developing
countries along with the establishment of a mandatory fund to realize these
rights. It was noted that the farmers of the developing countries are not
likely to see any of the money from such a fund. Given the intractable items at
the FAO, the U.S. has questioned the feasibility of continuing the negotiation
until there is more substantial chance for movement. Should the negotiations
fail, it appears that the issues may revert to the COP where many of the
negotiators will be from the environment rather than agriculture ministries and
the U.S. is not at the table. The Council noted that historical and political
issues are driving the negotiations and that there are many U.S. contributions
to developing countries, including training of foreign scientists that need to
be recognized and called upon the university community to renew their linkages.
11. Dr. Cathy Enright and Mary McLeod from the Department of State indicated
the Biosafety Protocol negotiations have one more session scheduled for
February 1999. When they are completed, there may be more opportunity for the
negotiation of the IU to continue. The biosafety negotiations are headed toward
written prior informed consent on any living modified organism (LMO) including
research and commercial shipments. This may have a serious impact on scientific
exchanges. It would also affect commingled agricultural commodities (grains)
and products of LMOs which could have a great effect on trade.
12. Dean Urmston, Executive Director of the American Seed Trade Association
(ASTA), described its participation in the international discussions and its
concerns. In the area of the biosafety negotiations, he described the effort to
show some 18 delegates or members the process used in the U.S. to regulate the
transgenic plants. ASTA believes that lack of experience with these matters is
making developing countries too conservative and that we must do more to
educate those in critical positions to the inherent safety of the process.
Further, Mr. Urmston also described ASTA's concerns about the status of the
NPGS. Following the effort initiated by Dr. Steven Smith of Pioneer with the
Customer Focus Group for the NPGS, ASTA also became concerned upon the release
of the GAO report and described the ASTA initiative to help secure additional
funding for the NPGS. He introduced consultant Kellye Eversole, Eversole
Associates, who will be contracted by ASTA for two years to attempt to double
the NPGS budget by the year 2002. This effort is supported by a resolution by
ASTA Board of Directors.
13. Dr. Richard Lower, Chair, reported on his activities in the Experiment
Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) Sub Committee on Genetic
Resources. He reemphasized the the importance and timeliness of: a) Dr. Eileen
Kennedy's discussion on the Interagency Genome Initiative; b) the germplasm
activities addressed by Dr. Stanton and the concerns of the Directors of the
SAES about prioritization of funding for germplasm, the need for work on minor
crops and gene enrichment of existing collections; and c) the study on IPR
relationships between the private sector and SAES.
14. Prior to discussing current topics about which the Council might make a
resolution, members of the Council raised the issue about the impact of
previous resolutions of the Council. Chair Lower read the previous resolutions
of NGRAC and noted the positive response of a letter of Deputy Secretary
Rominger to former Chair, John Barton. They noted that there has been little or
no action on most of the items. With that, they questioned the Department's
interest in having the Council or hearing its views. The Council agreed to some
language in resolutions to bring some of the historic recommendations to the
attention of the Department again.
15. Chair Lower called for members to identify subject material which they
consider worthy for some comment or recommendation. The following
recommendations were proclaimed:
Genomic Research and Genetic Resources
The NGRAC believes that genomics research will contribute positively to
several related genetic resources programs.
The NGRAC recommends that the following research areas, which
are unlikely to be the subject of industry research, but are important for
public sector research, should be identified as components of any Request for
Proposals (RFP): -
- Foster characterization and understanding of the germplasm collections of
all life forms.
- Increase efficiency of collection, maintenance and establishment of core
collections.
- Evaluate wild relatives.
- Enhance technologies necessary to enable gene enrichment of collections.
Genetic Resources Road Map
The financial resources that support the diverse array of the USDA's genetic
resources programs appear disparate and haphazard. Also, the interrelationships
between public and private sectors in genomics and other genetic resource
programs must be elucidated. Without an overall plan the probability for
duplication, as well as gaps, in significant areas of research is high. This
Council has repeatedly asked for a strategic plan for all genetic resources
programs of the Department.
The NGRAC again recommends that the USDA develop an overall
strategic plan for genetic resources research that involves agriculture and
includes a roadmap for genomics that defines the relationship between intra-
and extra-mural programs.
Microbial Resources
Microorganisms are an appropriate component of an Agricultural Genome and
Germplasm program from a number of perspectives. Rhizobium and other
nitrogen-fixing symbionts of crop plants have long been of interest and have
been studied at the molecular level. Microorganisms (e.g. Lactobacilli) have
roles in food production. Numerous bacteria and fungi are pathogens, and others
are responsible for food spoilage and toxicity. Microorganisms play a key role
in bioremediation and bioconversion. A considerable number of small genomes
have already been sequenced in public and private sectors, and the power of
comparative genomics will expedite both sequencing and interpretation of
microbial genomes. To date, the microorganisms selected for sequencing have
been primarily model organisms, such as E. coli and yeast, human
pathogens of particular interest to the pharmaceutical industry, and organisms
of great evolutionary significance--archaea, chemotrophs, extremophiles.
Microorganisms of agricultural and nutritional significance could be a highly
successful and important component of a comprehensive food genome project. It
seems unlikely that most of these important organisms (Lactobacillus and
perhaps Rhizobium excepted) will be given priority in the
non-agricultural genome projects currently underway. The Council also notes
that pest and pest-control insects and aquaculture organisms have not received
adequate attention with respect to genomics and germplasm conservation. We
recommend coordination and cooperation with the American Society for
Microbiology. The NGRAC recommends that the USDA collaborate and cooperate with
the American Society of Microbiology to develop the microbial component of the
strategic plan for genetic resources.
Bioinformatics
Bioinformatics needs to receive emphasis during the earliest planning stages
for an Agricultural Genome project. Expert input on database and analytical
technology, as well as training to ensure future expertise, is necessary to
handle the new volumes and types of data that must be made available and
intelligible. Interactivity between different types of data and among different
organismal information bases, while preserving basic "local" autonomy
and ease of input for each component, is an important goal. New centers provide
a special opportunity to initiate state-of-the-art informatics at those sites.
The NGRAC recommends that the USDA involve informatics experts
in the design and implementation of new genomic centers and that their
recommendations be transmitted to and implemented as soon as possible in
existing database centers.
Small and Medium Size Farms
The NGRAC supports the right of farmers to save seed for use in producing
future crops, subject to statutory and contractual rights of seed companies. It
is pleased with the ARS decision to evaluate research leading to new
technologies such as the Technology Protection System that may influence the
viability of small and medium sized farms.
The Council recognizes that the existence of publicly-funded plant and
animal breeding programs at the state experiment stations are a major factor in
the ability of small and medium sized farmers to have access to improved plant
and animal genetics adapted and suited for their needs.
The NGRAC recommends that the directors of the NPGS collections
and facilities identify opportunities to involve small and medium size farms in
their programs, including seed preservation and propagation efforts.
Seed Savers
The Council recognizes the valuable contributions made by grassroots
organizations (e.g. Seed Savers' Exchange, Native Seed Search, Southern Seed
Legacy, Minor Breeds Conservancy) in preservation of plant and animal germplasm
and accompanying knowledge, as well as their efforts to raise public awareness
of the value of older material and its use.
The NGRAC recommends future efforts of the NGRP to improve
linkages with local efforts of grassroot conservation organizations including,
for example, the backup of heirloom seed collections in appropriate NPGS
facilities and the inclusion of rare breeds in the plans for security backup
for animal genetic resources.
ASTA initiative
The NPGS effort to characterize, preserve and distribute plant germplasm is
essential to the future agricultural genome initiative as industry, farmers,
and public sector scientists recognize that the genomic information is only
useful if the genetic resources are available to be utilized. In recognition of
the findings of the GAO study on the National Plant Germplasm System, the
American Seed Trade Association has established a Congressional funding
initiative to augment the NPGS budget to $ 40 million. This initiative resulted
from interactions between the ASTA and the non-profit Consumer Focus Group for
Plant Genetic Resources involving a broad consensus of private and public
sector stakeholders.
The NGRAC recommends that the Department capitalize on the ASTA
initiative by ensuring that the Administration puts forth an initiative to
accomplish this objective.
Coordination/Training
The legislation for the National Genetic Resources Program recognizes that
preserving genetic resources worldwide is in the best interest of long-term
sustainability of U.S. agriculture. Training in the area of genetic resources
is sadly lacking in graduate curricula in the U.S. and other countries around
the world.
The NGRAC recommends that ESCOP and USDA coordinate support of
graduate education in disciplines related to genetic resources. These efforts
should be directed to both U.S. and international students, especially students
from developing countries that are major sources of agriculturally-important
germplasm.
1890/Hispanic Serving Institutions/1994 Tribal Colleges
It is well recognized that principally through the state agricultural
experiment station (SAES) system that the National Genetic Resources Program is
well known within and enjoys wide-spread support from the majority of the
institutions of higher education comprising the 1862 Land Grant system.
Simultaneously, however, there is an awareness that a segment of the Land Grant
community comprising the 1890 institutions and the more recently established
groups of Hispanic Serving Institutions and 1994 Tribal colleges need to
participate more fully in the collection, preservation and maintenance of
genetic resources residing in the broad array of organisms represented in the
NGRP collections. These universities and colleges should be encouraged and
assisted in efforts to improve education and training broadly related to the
diverse aspects of genetic resources, such as breeders, curators, plant
pathologists, nutritionists, social scientists and molecular biologists.
The NGRAC recommends that the USDA take appropriate action to
increase the involvement of these institutions in programs involving the
management of variability existing in the existing gene pools of the NGRP. The
Council suggests that its members initiate this activity by making contact with
organizations such as the 1890 Association of Research Directors which provides
overall governance for agricultural research carried out in the 1890
institutions and similarly the parallel organizations for the Hispanic Serving
Institutions and 1994 Tribal colleges.
International
The Council recognizes the value to present and future generations,
domestically and internationally, of open and equitable access to germplasm
resources for food and agriculture critical for national and global food and
income security. It recognizes that different stakeholders have different
goals, resources, and capabilities in addressing the genetic resources
component of national and global food security. It also recognizes and
appreciates the complexity of the global germplasm debate and the variety of
viewpoints historically anchored and well-intentioned. Although the potential
benefits are diverse, the following four actions have been singled out as high
return areas which could foster good will between the U.S. and other countries
which exchange critical germplasm.
- Sharing of Information and Credit. The Council encourages sharing of
public databases, scientific research, germplasm, and recognition of the
contributions of all engaged parties.
- Enhancing Educational Exchange focused on Germplasm Issues. The
Council encourages efforts toward advanced graduate training of international
students at those appropriate U.S. universities recognized as leading edge
genetic resources research institutions. The Council recommends closer
collaboration with existing related U.S./international agricultural and natural
resource programs which also have biodiversity goals (e.g. USAID/CRSP, CGIAR).
- Supporting Community-based in-situ genetic resources preservation
and enhancement. The Council recognizes the indispensable critical role
played by farmer folk variety curators both in the U.S. and foreign centers of
biodiversity in maintaining germplasm in-situ. In conjunction with U.S.
international development initiatives in decentralization/ democratization, the
Council recommends heightened support for local United Nations Environment
Programme Agenda 21 programs.
- Improving Assessment and accountability of full U.S. Contribution to
Global Genetic Resources Initiatives. The Council suggests an accounting of
U.S. government contributions directed specifically to all aspects of global
genetic resources conservation and sustainable utilization (such as training,
education, conservation, exchange of information) and that this accounting be
made public. In portraying the U.S. contribution, the communication should be
proactive and sensitive to global politics on germplasm issues.
- The NGRAC strongly recommends the continued participation of the U.S. in
the international negotiations and that, within the existing legal frameworks,
the U.S. continue to foster the sharing of benefits related to genetic
resources between the U.S. and other countries.
16. The NGRAC reaffirmed the recommendations from the fourth meeting of the
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) held May 16-17, 1995, in
Washington, D.C.:
Recommendation on Material Transfer Agreements. The NGRAC
recommends that, in addition to participating in the various UN negotiations
affecting access to genetic resources, the U.S. encourage, directly or in
cooperation with the CGIAR community, negotiation among a combination of
developing and developed nations toward model material transfer agreements for
the acquisition and transfer of agricultural germplasm. May 1995.
Recommendations for Animal Germplasm. The NGRAC
recommends that: 1) the National Animal Germplasm Program Leader (ARS) and the
National Animal Germplasm Coordinating Committee develop a plan for the
management of animal germplasm, including a) priorities for germplasm storage
at the ARS animal germplasm genebank at Beltsville, Maryland, b) database, c)
linkage of germplasm database with the genome database, d) mechanisms for use
of the stored germplasm, and e) identification of needed research; and 2)
USDA/ARS obtain needed funding to service and maintain the Beltsville germplasm
storage facility, in accordance with this plan, as the primary site for the
National Animal Germplasm Repository and that a backup site be established for
long-term storage of animal germplasm. May 1995.
17. The NGRAC reaffirmed the recommendations of the sixth meeting of the
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council held in February 1996:
Reference is made to the Recommendations of the NGRAC September
1995 NGRAC Meeting and a discussion held at that time with representatives of
the Committee and Deputy Secretary Rominger (excerpt attached). Following that
meeting the Council approved sending a request from the Council which Mr.
Rominger later asked be put in the form of a Decision Memorandum. The Council
determined that it wanted to be more precise in its recommendations requested
by Mr. Rominger and chose to finalize the memorandum during the current meeting
of the Council.
In a letter dated March 1, 1996, to Mr. Rominger from Dr. John Barton,
Chairperson of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC), Dr.
Barton lists four specific recommendations of the NGRAC to the Department. The
USDA is asked to approve, disapprove, or suggest other action of the four
recommendations listed. A copy of the response from Mr. Rominger is attached
following the recommendations.
Recommendation 1. A person, perhaps on detail or loan from a university,
should be appointed for 12-18 months to assist the Director of the National
Genetic Resources Program (NGRP) in development and completion of a strategic
plan for the program (including collection, conservation, and dissemination
activities as well as closely related genomic and germplasm research
activities) and definition of any new procedures that may be needed for
implementation of the plan. Among the tasks to be undertaken by this person are
inventorying current genetic resource activities, examination of operational
subcommittee structures for specific categories of genetic resources, and
consideration of communications and data-base systems for germplasm and genomic
information. This person should work in close coordination with the National
Genetic Resources Advisory Council and with the committee described in the next
recommendation. March 1996.
Recommendation 2. There should be appointed a standing, interagency
committee within the United States Department of Agriculture consisting of
agency heads and/or their empowered designees to be charged with assisting the
Director of the NGRP in coordinating the activities of their agencies in
respect to this Program. Specific members of this committee should be
responsible for developing and maintaining understanding of all government and
private genetic resource activities involving organisms such as forest trees,
microbes, and aquatic plants and animals, in which there are many important
activities outside the Department. This committee could usefully be a
subcommittee of the planned REE Policy Council; it should report on its
activities at least once a year to the National Genetic Resources Advisory
Council. March 1996.
Recommendation 3. To assist in coordinating the National Genetic Resources
[Advisory] Program and related activities throughout the Department, the
Department should create an annual cross-cutting budget compilation of proposed
and actual Department expenditures on genetic resources (defined as above to
include collection, conservation, and dissemination activities as well as
closely related genomic and germplasm research activities). This total should
be made public and it and its breakdown should be made available to the
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council after the budget has been presented
by the President to Congress. March 1996.
Recommendation 4. In order to provide increased programmatic and budgetary
emphasis on the National Genetic Resources [Advisory] Program and to strengthen
the Department's participation in international discussions affecting genetic
resources, the Agricultural Research Service should establish the activities of
this program as one of its primary independent categories. The Program Director
should have both overall program responsibility for the entire program and
specific budgetary responsibility for the Agricultural Research Service
components. March 1996.
Henry L. Shands
Executive Secretary
Phone: 202-720-7545
October 1, 1998
(Edited by NGRAC)
Reference Item 15: Copy of Letter from Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger to
NGRAC Chair John Barton
May 9, 1996
Dr. John H. Barton
Chair, National Genetic Resources Advisory Council
Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305-8601
Dear Dr. Barton:
Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1996, in which you transmitted four
recommendations of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports the council's recommendation 2
that a committee of empowered agency designees be formed and charged with
coordinating the activities of their agencies with respect to the National
Genetic Resources Program (NGRP). The composition of the committee should
include representatives from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS);
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; other
representatives from the Research, Education, and Economics mission area;
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Forest Service; and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. I will also encourage the committee to invite
participation by non-USDA Federal agencies with interest in the NGRP, such as
the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Institutes of
Health, and Department of the Interior.
Once the interagency committee is formed, one of the tasks for the committee
would be to compile an annual budget cross-cut as the Council suggests in
recommendation 3. A second task would be to execute recommendation 1, providing
technical support to the Director of the NGRP, in the most expeditious manner.
The objective of recommendation 4 should be addressed by ARS management.
Indeed, ARS is studying the structure of its National Program Staff and
programmatic areas which include the NGRP. I will suggest that the
Administrator of ARS incorporate the Council's concerns and interests into the
ARS planning process and advise the Council on any action taken in this regard.
Please communicate my appreciation to the Council for its hard work. The
conservation of genetic resources is a priority of USDA. These excellent
recommendations will help USDA act more quickly and effectively on the needs of
the program.
Sincerely,
signed
RICHARD E. ROMINGER
Deputy Secretary
cc: K. N. Stauber, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics
F. P. Horn, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service
E. B. Knipling, Deputy Administrator, National Program Staff
H. L. Shands, Director, National Genetic Resources Program
USDA National Genetic Resources Advisory Council
USDA South Building, Room 3109
Washington, D.C.
Seventh Meeting, September 29-30, 1998
Adopted Agenda
Tuesday, September 29, 1998
8:30 a.m., Opening Remarks, Introductions, Chair Richard Lower
8:40, Welcome and comments from Deputy Under Secretary for Research,
Education and Economics, Eileen Kennedy
8:55, Adoption of Agenda, Chair
9:00, Current Budget Status of NGRP and NGRAC Budget, Henry Shands and Peter Bretting
9:15, Review of National Programs on Germplasm and
Genome to include:
USDA Genome Project, Chair
ARS: Review of Status and Funding of Plant, Animal, Microbial Germplasm and
Genome Activities and Databases, Eileen Kennedy,
Henry Shands and Peter Bretting
CSREES and ERS: Frey Reports on Germplasm Enhancement, Minor Crop Program;
Knutson study on IPR issues in SAES, Marsha Stanton
CSREES: Animal Germplasm and Genome Activities ESCOP: Germplasm and Genome
Report, Richard Frahm, Richard Lower
10:00-10:20, Break
10:15, Technology Protection System, Mike Ruff
10:45, Review continues, Chair
11:30, American Seed Trade Association and Corporate initiative on
Plant Germplasm, Dean Urmston
11:45, Lunch (Another group will use the room during the lunch
hour)
1:15 p.m., Status of FAO International Negotiations on Plant Genetic
Resources and Issues of the Biodiversity Convention, Melinda Kimble
2:30, Discussion on International Genetic Resources Issues, Henry Shands
3:00-3:20 Break
3:20, Resume Discussion of International/National, Chair
4:30, Issues and Report Assignments, Chair
5:00, Close of Business
Wednesday, September 30, 1998
8:00 a.m., Resume Discussion, Chair
10:00-10:15, Break
10:15, Resume Discussion, Chair
11:45, Lunch (Another group will use the room during the lunch
hour)
1:15 p.m., Council Discussion (Identification of Key Issues and
Development of Recommendations), Chair
3:30, Wrap up and Intersessional Assignments
4:00, Adjourn Sixth Meeting of NGRAC, Chair
Version:
September 29, 1998
Henry L. Shands
Return to: Meetings, NGRAC
Home Page
|
Email this page 
