February, 2003

A Robin Hood approach to plant biotechnology
By Howard J. Atkinson, Royal Society B.A.A.S Magazine

THE GREEN REVOLUTION in plant breeding helped meet the food needs of t:he burgeoning human population between 1965 and 1995 by producing high-yielding varieties of grain. However, it is unlikely alone to assure future food security for all as t:he world population continues to grow in the next century. While there is evidence of benefits to both urban and rural poor the green revolution has also had some negative consequences: increased landlessness; disruption of social systems: loss of beneficial farm practices: and increased marginalisation of women. Sustainable agricultural production aims to minimise these problems but few consider it likely to meet all future needs. Consequently a new green revolution is required that is equable sustainable and environmentally friendly.

The seeds of a new green revolution have already been sow. Approximately 26 million hectares of transgenic crops were grown in the USA in 1998 and this figure will increase threefold by 2000. There will be a gradual broadening in range of both crops and traits offered with the new technology. Its potential scope sets it apart from the original green revolution. Until now this technology has been dominated by the needs of agribusiness, but it can and should be given a poverty focus.

Advantages of transgenic seed

The seed is a black box to which the transgenic approach adds only a limited change, to the overall mystery of plant germination and growth that all farmers accept. It is important that the introduction of a transgenic plant does not change traditional farming practices. Transgenic seed should be part of a seed improvement programme with no attached cash premium and allow for farmer-saved seed. The technology must be detached from the interests and control of biotechnology companies to achieve the necessary poverty focus. It must also address all the safety concerns that can be articulated scientifically.

Enabling technology

Even critics of genetic engineering appreciate that improvements to farming will arise if the research is publicly funded for the public good. Wheat. Maize and rice provide over 50% of calories to the world diet and this figure reaches 85% by adding only a further five species. These major crops interest agribusiness and for most of them efficient genetic transformation of these crops is already possible. There is also a clear need for effective routine transformation of important crops in publicly funded research laboratories. The Rockefeller Foundation - a philanthropic organisation with interests in alleviating developing world poverty - has promoted this position for rice and maize. Also, public funds have helped established transformation of other crops, such as cassava, that do not interest agribusiness but have a clear poverty focus. The Rockefeller Foundation also recognises important priorities of training in the technology and addressing of biosafety needs. Biosafety is vital to responsible technology transfer to the developing world and the recipients must meet the biosafety standards of the donor country. There has been much effort to achieve this standard in recent years.

Appropriate technology.
Selecting the appropriate transgenes for subsistence growers requires judgement of the benefits and possible negative scientific and socio-economic consequences of implementation. Experience with biological control and integrated pest management has shown that scientific complexity is a disadvantage in developing world implementation. Ideally, the new technology should not require either additional knowledge or resources from the grower before implementation.

Until now this technology has seen dominated by the needs of agribusiness, but it can and should be given a poverty focus.

Nematode resistance developed at he University of Leeds provides one example of an appropriate transgenic technology. Nematodes are soil animals that cannot normally be seen with the naked eye. Therefore, a technology that is effective against many different forms eliminates the need to identify them and determine if damaging levels are present in a field. This accepts the reality that most growers in the developing world do not have advice continually available
to them. The new technology involves a plant gene product that prevents the root-parasitic nematode from digesting plant protein in its food, so limiting its growth and ability to damage the crop plant. The plant gene product that achieves this effect is clearly safe. It occurs naturally in rice seed and so is currently eaten daily by millions of people. This natural trait can now be offered as a transgene from rice to other plants. Furthermore, the new protein can be restricted to the roots of the transgenic plant where nematodes occur. This ensures that it is not consumed in foods made from transgenic plants.

Inappropriate technology
Many would judge that transgenic plants with resistance to certain herbicides represent a technology that lacks a poverty focus. Herbicide use eliminates hand weeding, which is an important source of rural labour. Some might argue that it would be acceptable for it to be eliminated if development is inclusive and benefits the poor by providing more
rewarding work. Weed control for subsistence farmers would be better tackled using a bushy leaved rich hybrid, produced by convention plant breeding, which inhibits weed growth by blocking sunlight. Similar strategies are likely to be employed in the future for a wide range of crops using genetic engineering. Even inappropriate technology could be made to have indirect benefit by opening up other opportunities. Governments, together with both agribusiness and subsistence farming sectors in their country, could request a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to appropriate transgenic technology for a subsistence crop. This could be required before agribusiness was allowed to market transgenic seeds of other crop species in the agribusiness sector of that country.

Intellectual property
The Rockefeller Foundation expects its grant holders to share material and technology resulting from the research it funds. It appreciates that intellectual property protection for developing world applications can be beneficial in helping to secure funds for more research. The University of Leeds has used a 'Robin Hood' approach by licensing nematode resistance technology for agribusiness but donating it for developing world applications through a royalty-free licence to the Plant Sciences Research Programme of the Department for International Development of the UK government. Several crops and many developing world countries are covered by the approach. The cost of developing the technology for resource poor farmers is reduced by investment by industry for First World needs. For instance, the nematode-resistance technology developed with industry for European potato fields requires only research to adapt the approach before it is suitable for subsistence farmers in the Andes. This involves transforming the potato cultivars favoured in South America and addressing the differing biosafety issues. A country such such as Bolivia would benefit from a reduction in the acreage needed for potatoes, which would release smallholders' land to plant nutritious crops such as legumes.

Biotechnology companies
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications AmeriCenter - a US-based organisation- seeks to transfer plant technologies that are requested by the developing world. About 10% of its funding is from the private sector (e.g. Monsanto and Novartis) and its focus is towards small, poor farmers. It helps developing countries identify biotechnology needs and priorities and looks for new opportunities from developed world biotechnology.

Experience with biological control and integrated pest management has shown that scientific complexity is a disadvantage in developing world implementation.

It is a broker between potential recipients and donors and helps mobilise funds to implement proposals. Counselling helps developing countries to develop safe and responsible testing. Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity (a US Agency for International Development initiative) also develops agreements to facilitate the role of companies as donors. Critical for all such activities is maintaining a poverty focus. The risk is that support for agribusiness sectors of developing world countries may have a negative impact on the poor, as before with green revolution.
Companies should offer or be persuaded to donate constructs for transformation of crops in which they lack commercial interest. There are several examples of technology donation by companies. Commercial interests need not be compromised even when the recipient crop species is a major commodity. For instance, the indigenous people of the high Andes eat a subspecies of potato that differs in flavour and cooking characteristics from those we eat in the First World. Even if such potatoes could be exported economically, they would not have a market. Similarly, a large range of rice cultivars have been transformed and those favoured by small growers can be targeted for transformation. This does not compromise the different needs of international rice markets. Hopefully companies can reap some corporate benefit from their altruism by enhancing their esteem with socially conscious consumers in the developed world. There is even scope for ethical advertising by donor companies. Also, helping poor farmers from the poverty trap may create future markets for their products.

Government agencies
Agencies in developed countries need effective and continual monitoring of national research activity. They can then broker opportunity and need. Countries that are not covered by current patent law could implement technologies unilaterally but a consensus is preferable. An open-access international register of offered non-exclusive royalty-free licences should be complied by the biotechnology industry, institutes and universities. Entries would be by subsistence crop, country, technology, donor and broker contact. This would be a valuable step to help secure future food security. Effort is also required to ensure that the public are aware that some transgenic plants have a clear poverty focus. Such plants can contribute to increased world food production in ways that are distinct from the interests of agribusiness.

Reprinted from http://www.biology.leeds.ac.uk/psp/publications/biotech/biotech3.htm