Meeting May 12-13, 1993 - National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC)

Executive Summary
Second Meeting May 12-13, 1993

1. The second meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held May 12-13, 1993 in Washington, DC. In attendance were all nine appointed members and the seven ex officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by Neal Jorgensen with the assistance of vice-chair Don Duvick.

2. The NGRAC agreed that, as possible, the U.S. should strongly urge FAO to keep the International Technical Conference on schedule for 1995 and find the funds from within their available resources, should urge FAO to renegotiate the IU as soon as possible, should urge U.S. Delegation and FAO to oppose biotechnology-related code activities duplicatory with other international agencies, and urged that the U.S. program develop means and agreements to ensure the free availability of genetic resources in the program.

3. As a result of the Convention on Biological Diversity, USDA should examine the cost and benefit for a shift from free exchange (examine the InBio agreement model and food aid linkage): Resolution (Duvick/Walton): USDA and related agencies should examine conditions underlying a shift in policy from free exchange access to genetic resources and prepare for such a change by conducting cost/benefit studies.

4. The NGRP should continue to coordinate and ensure support to the Vavilov Plant Breeding Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia and its network.

5. In support of the NGRP budget and database activities, Resolution (Herdt/ Walton): The Council recommends that the Department of Agriculture fully explore the possibility of becoming an active participant on the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, with particular emphasis on the needs that USDA, including the National Agricultural Library and the Agricultural Research Service have concerning information management and database associated with national genetic resources.

6. Director should follow up development of a strategic plan for the NGRP with a) an overview of total program reporting by life forms; b) develop an outline to follow for reporting; c) call for information on the total program through a matrix to organize budget or expenditure of USDA, other organizations, and industry broken out by collection, preservation, etc. to utilization; d) request ERS support for this economic information.

7. Director should follow up the matter of establishment of coordinating committees with professional societies and relevant life form groups, as appropriate.

8. Chairman Jorgensen develop reporting letter to Secretary Espy conveying the resolutions and emphasizing importance of NGRP to United States in support of industry and a more sustainable agriculture.

9. Next scheduled meeting of the Council is planned for December 15-16, 1993.NGRACNational Genetic Resources Advisory Council Bldg. 005, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center - West Beltsville, Maryland 20705 Phone: (301) 504-5059; FAX: (301) 504-5467 

FINAL SUMMARY OF SECOND MEETING
MAY 12-13, 1993

1. The second meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held May 12-13, 1993 in Washington, DC. In attendance were all nine appointed members and the seven ex officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by Neal Jorgensen with the assistance of vice-chair Don Duvick. Guests and resource persons were introduced. During the morning session of May 12, Oregon Public Television filmed the discussion (paras 2-4) for possible footage in a documentary film called "The Seed Savers" to be aired on Public TV in the spring of 1994. It is funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation.

2. Acting Assistant Secretary for Science and Education (S&E), R. Dean Plowman, welcomed and addressed the members. He related the concerns of Senator Bumpers (AR) in the Senate Appropriation Hearing of S&E agencies on May 11 about feeding a world population expected to double in about 40 years. Secretary Plowman noted that the remarkable achievements in food production capacity came from the efforts in germplasm collecting, preservation and enhancement with emphasis on exchange of genetic resources. He noted that the budgets for FY 1994 were tight and he expected no new money for genetic resources. He also noted that ARS will be downsizing by about 330 scientists to comply with the personnel cap.

3. The NGRAC approved the Final Summary of Meeting December 15-16, 1992 and the agenda for the current meeting (attached).

4. Don Duvick led the discussion on the 5th Session of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources (CPGR) held from April 19-23. Dr. Duvick served as industry advisor to the U.S. delegation composed of Wayne Denney, the Agricultural Attache Harry Mussman and Henry Shands, Delegation Leader. Wolfgang Siebeck, lawyer for the CGIAR, and Deborah Strauss, Managing Editor of DIVERSITY News Journal, were also present at the CPGR meeting and present for this discussion. The NGRAC was provided the draft report from the meeting and the U.S. delegation's reporting cable as background information. Dr. Duvick highlighted a number of items which are enumerated below and upon which the other delegates to the CPGR commented: 1) lack of funds for the global system as an expression of Farmers' Rights and the sentiment that contributions to such a fund should be mandatory; 2) the useful reports on various organizations' activities (FAO document CPGR/93/6) including International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs); 3) the implications of the Agenda 21 agreements from the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development; 4) the force of the law of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the apparently bilateral approach in contrast to the multilateral approach of the FAO International Undertaking (IU) on PGR noted by Dr. Siebeck; 5) the options for control of access to genetic resources (Article 15 of the CBD): [a] continue free availability, [b] host country collections controlled by country through national sovereignty, and [c] country of origin would have primary ownership rights; 6) the discussion of the (for now, voluntary) Code of Conduct on Plant Collecting and Germplasm Transfer which has been recommended to the FAO Conference for approval in November; 7) the Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, the politics of the discussions of whether it is really needed, and the observation that decisions on it are to be deferred to the Working Group of the CPGR; 8) the suspicion and debate on the offer by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research's (CGIAR) International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) to place their germplasm collections (which they consider held in trust for the world community) under the auspices of FAO's Network of Base Collections (FAO document CPGR/93/11); 9) the proposed 1995 FAO International Technical Conference' loss of "Technical" in its title and the political nature of its manipulation by FAO; 10) the difficulties associated with the Commission being unable to agree on Terms of Reference for its Working Group; and 11) the proposal for the renegotiation of the IU to conform to the CBD and to be presented to the Conference of Parties of the CBD as a potential protocol for agricultural plant biological diversity. The NGRAC was concerned to learn that FAO appears to have no intention for the Technical Conference to be held in 1995 thus undermining the country study activities associated with it which were to coincide with activities (including country studies) of the UNCED Agenda 21. Dr. Duvick noted the very political (not technical) nature of the session, the continuing emphasis on direct compensation for access, and the widespread impression that the only beneficiaries are the transnational seed companies. In summary, Dr. Duvick noted an ironic inconsistency of U.S. policies on genetic resources of agricultural importance: the Government is unable or unwilling to adequately fund its Genetic Resources Program (including this Council), while at the same time it places great importance on the outcome of international conferences on genetic diversity and genetic resources. The NGRAC agreed that, as possible, the U.S. should strongly urge FAO to keep the Technical Conference on schedule for 1995 and find the funds from within their available resources, should urge FAO to renegotiate the IU as soon as possible, and should urge the U.S. Delegation and FAO to oppose biotechnology-related code activities duplicatory with other international agencies. The NGRAC urged the U.S. program develop means and agreements to ensure the free availability of genetic resources (all forms), but to also prepare contingency plans for dealing with countries that insist on commercializing their basic genetic resources.

5. The review and discussion of the IARC network was chaired by Rita Colwell with resource reports from Robert Bertram and Dana Dalrymple from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Dr. Bertram reviewed the mandates of the centers including new centers dealing with forest tree and aquatic species. He noted the centers with animal programs in Ethiopia and Kenya. USAID, while normally funding multilateral projects (i.e. CGIAR), it is involved in a number of bilateral projects such as strengthening the germplasm program in India. ARS is providing training and for support research projects with India's National Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources as well as database, plant collecting in both countries, and guidance on the new long term storage facility and mechanical and laboratory equipment. Recently, support ($400,000) for the Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) network in St. Petersburg, Russia from USAID was approved. Funds will be managed through the CGIAR's special fund and be managed by IBPGR with ARS oversight. ARS has been involved in a cooperative program with VIR for five years. ARS support has been in several areas but with special help to put the VIR plant germplasm on electronic database. It was recently increased its effort by adding 10 new computers to the four already in place. Some 150,000 accessions have been documented of 380,000 on inventory. USAID funds will go to upgrade the long term storage refrigeration at Kuban, provide seed drying facilities at a number of stations where regeneration for VIR is conducted, provide tissue culture facilities at St. Petersburg, and assist the herbarium at St. Petersburg. There was interest by some Council members to pursue the free exchange arrangements. The Council entered into a lengthy discussion of access to and valuation of genetic resources as might be affected by the entry into force of the CBD. Concern was expressed by Henry Shands about payment for genetic resources for food and agriculture when they have historically been essentially freely exchanged at no cost. He pointed out the complexity of tracking the use of exchanged germplasm and the potential impact on farmers since the royalty costs could be passed to them but they have no capacity to pass it on to their market. He further noted that in the FAO Undertaking, the germplasm exchanges were to recognize the contributions of farmers, not penalize them. There may be a need to change the U.S. law to be in conformity with the CBD in order to provide for the value-added genetic resources leaving the U.S. Approximately 34 percent of foreign distributions of the NPGS is of improved cultivars. Access under bilateral mutually agreed terms of the CBD could be linked to food aid and to science and technology assistance under terms of the CBD Treaty. Marjorie Hoy questioned what scholarly work had been done on an economic analysis or cost benefit on the value of genetic resources; Bob Herdt reiterated the complexity of the subject and that the only rigorous work of which he is aware was done on the value of the agricultural output due to genetic improvement of IRRI rice by Robert Evanson at Yale. It is based on the through-put of the use of acquired germplasm to the new varieties developed. Calvin Sperling from the ARS Germplasm Resources Laboratory indicated that Ethiopia is interested in exchanging resources under the terms of the CBD. Don Duvick suggested that it appears that there is the development of a new market for plant genetic resources. In FAO and the CBD, the germplasm exchanged under terms of the CBD Treaty would be monopolistic and that the present effort appears to be the starts and stops of developing a free market situation. There was a strong sentiment that this change is not all bad and that it is part of change. Dr. Bertram thought that the ornamental side of the present exchange system where charging for germplasm has occurred for years might be useful in developing the subject. Dr. Hoy noted that the free availability is only one of the issues. Dr. Herdt noted that there can be no reversal to the events shaping this process and Judith Vaitukaitis emphasized that this is a natural evolution of ownership issues. Dr. Colwell summarized the discussion suggesting the need for economic assessment and assignment of values to germplasm.

6. Chair Jorgensen asked Henry Shands to provide the Council information on the budget and the Department's plan to reduce Federal employment. Dr. Shands indicated that the FY94 budget hearings were just completed but that markup and conference committee on budget have not been scheduled yet. There is no new funding for genetic resources in the FY94 budget. The FY95 budget process is just beginning and the report of this Council meeting may be appropriate timing for the Council's recommendations on needs to the Secretary. The mechanism to deal with the Federal FTEs may be to provide contracts to associated universities to provide personnel. It was suggested that the NRC can hire post-doctorates on contract and that they do not count against the Federal FTE totals. The possibility of allocating funds to competitive grants program was suggested as a means to provide funds and to conduct needed research. It was suggested that ARS consider getting a person on the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) initiative on High Performance Computing and Communication support to the database needs of the agricultural genome projects. Also, the initiative on Biotechnology is very broad, including all health, agriculture, and environment and may have to be narrowed to focus on selective industries such as ag biotech. The National Biological Survey is supposed to pull together selected biological research activities under one activity in the Department of Interior. The Council unanimously passed the following resolution:

The Council recommends that the Department of Agriculture fully explore the possibility of becoming an active participant on the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, with particular emphasis on the needs that USDA, including the National Agricultural Library and the Agricultural Research Service have concerning information management and database associated with national genetic resources.

7. Mike Strauss reported that the NAS-NRC report on Managing Global Genetic Resources - Livestock will be released in early June. He expects the report on Agricultural Crops and Policy Issues to be published in early December. The NAS-NRC will not publish a report on fish and shellfish but the American Association for the Advancement of Science has developed a publication on the topic which will be released in December or January.

8. In its first meeting, the NGRAC asked that a strategic plan be developed for the National Genetic Resources Program. Elements of the plan were distributed to members and an update was made. It included the mission statements from the several agencies which the Council felt should be moved to an annex. The six points of the farm bill language need to be addressed. As extracted from the language of the legislation,

(d) FUNCTIONS.--The Secretary, acting through the program, shall--
(1) provide for the collection, classification, preservation, and dissemination of genetic material of importance to the food and agriculture sectors of the United States;
(2) conduct research on the genetic materials collected and on methods for storage and preservation of those materials;
(3) coordinate the activities of the program with similar activities occurring domestically;
(4) make available upon request, without charge and without regard to the country from which such request originates, the genetic material which the program assembles;
(5) expand the types of genetic resources included in the program to develop a comprehensive genetic resources program which includes plants (including silvicultural species), animal, aquatic, insect, microbiological, and other types of genetic resources of importance to food and agriculture, as resources permit; and
(6) engage in such other activities as the Secretary determines appropriate and as the resources of the program permit.

The Council expressed several concerns:

1) how can it make decisions about the national program without some information on current program, priorities and budget?;

2) how can the NGRAC make recommendations about the budget without knowing what our goals are?;

3) what should the NGRAC be looking at in regard to its own goals, purpose, mission in terms of a strategic plan? and

4) given the constraint to do more with less, priorities must be established but there is too little information available. The Council feels strongly that it needs a picture of the whole activity and recognizes that implementation of the strategic plan should be guided by how to do more with fewer resources. What is the basis for more resources? (What is being done and what resources do we have now? What should be done? What should be cut out, what should be increased? What is a minimal program?) Looking at the language of the farm bill, how much money is going into each of the activities described? What base are we working from? What ways can we do more with less: competitive grants, taking advantage of the human genome database activity, contracting out? The Council desires to look at the functional activities and funding by sector (Federal, state, private) for each of the activities and life forms mandated by the legislation. Prior to the next meeting of the Council, it asked to have agency budget breakdown by organism within life form to see balance of activities. It would like the various sectors to supply that information in an understandable way, preferable with a clear and concise executive summary backed by supporting data. Three matrices were suggested as useful: life forms vs. activities, life forms vs. agencies, and agencies vs. activities. It also asked to have the Economic Research Service provide information on food and agriculture production. For example, in the current production value by commodity, what is the value of pollinators? Dr. Hoy noted the need to conduct research to preserve germplasm better would result in a big cost benefit (i.e. the cryopreservation of Drosophila being applied to other arthropods through a research initiative). It noted that it could not do all the things specified with current funding, certainly not all at the same time. It suggested that a core group of persons from the various involved agencies be pulled together to organize the plan. It further suggested that ARS help stimulate the formation of the life form committees to better develop the assessments and operational plans. Professional organizations should be contacted to see if they desire to establish such committees within their structure.

9. David Hurt chaired the review of databases with Joe Howard and Susan McCarthy serving as the resource persons. The Plant Genome Database at the National Agricultural Library is funded at $1.37 million by ARS funds. Total staff approximate 14.7 FTE on the project from information services, programming, newsletter, and external database collaborations. NAL hopes to have the database on Internet by the end of the year. NAL has received no funding in support for the database activities. Coordination with ARS to develop a budget for the Department has provided projections over the next several years. They noted that NAL collaborates closely with the National Library of Medicine and other organizations having databases and online services in order to provide access compatibility through its networks. The Plant Genome database effort has taken advantage of coordination with the human genome project to acquire useful software. An example of the coordination is the insertion of a component of the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) soybean database detailing accession characteristics relating to map data. No effort on an Animal Genome Database has been possible because no funding has been received. Needs include database design, content, implementation, and accessibility which require considerable new staff and funding. While the NRI grants are generating required data, no funding has been made available to receive the data. Researchers have built backlogs of data unavailable to others as a result. The Council noted its concern and expressed interest in repeating its recommendation to the Secretary that action should be taken, perhaps through the FCCSET process [see para 6] to secure funding for development of the database. It was noted that the Regional Directors' Associations and the Committee of Nine have approved a pre-proposal on a National Research Support Project for animal species coordinators to deal with the animal genome data. The Plant Genome Program has groups working on core species of maize, soybean, wheat, and pine tree while also supporting Arabidopsis along with the National Science Foundation. Introductory statement questions relative to the GRIN database which resides in ARS were responded to by Henry Shands. The GRIN3 upgrade is moving ahead smoothly towards an early 1994 deployment of a relational database on the Solbourne computer. GRIN is now available over Internet (Gopher) as well as direct access. PC-GRIN enables users to receive diskettes or the recent CD-ROM of maize and 25 additional crops and manipulate them on their computers. Machi Dilworth from NSF discussed some of the database efforts NSF is supporting including one by Larry Moore at Oregon State University of over 400 primarily plant pathological organisms and the C. elegans and Drosophila collections. She noted that the funding for the Moore database will expire this year for lack of continued funding. The Council strongly suggested that ARS continue to support the database activities at the current level if the NAL gets only limited congressionally authorized funding in order to get the job done.

10. Richard Lower discussed the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Workshops held in conjunction with the USDA, Crop Science Society of America and the American Society for Horticultural Science. Participants from many disciplines were present in order to have a broad representation in each of the working groups. The first meeting was held in Anaheim in 1989 and the results documented in the American Society of Agronomy's, Intellectual Property Rights Associated with Plants (Spec. Pub. No. 52). The second was held in January 1993 in Washington, DC. Discussions focussed on licensing, exemptions for research and farmers, effects of IPR on germplasm use and exchange, social and ethical issues, effects of IPR on research agenda, effects on mechanisms for support of public programs, and the effects of more stringent forms of protection on the international relationship. New items affecting the 1993 Workshop agenda were the CBD, FAO IU, the 1991 UPOV Treaty, FDA ruling on biotech products, the NIH request to protect 2750 partial DNA sequences, and the NAFTA and GATT negotiations. The impact of some of the topics discussed here will become apparent: access to genes, cost of genes, cost-benefit analysis, shortage of plant breeders working with genetic diversity. John Barton mentioned that one of the key areas of application for the Council is the need for material transfer agreements (MTAs) to enable exchange of genetic material. Dr. Lower noted that Memoranda of Understandings and Agreements and the informal agreements of the past need more structure and MTAs are now appropriate. Dr. Hoy suggested that development of a standard form would be useful due to lack of uniform treatment in these agreements by the academic community. Mr. Barton indicated that NIH is working on that. Don Duvick noted that exchange of genetic materials for breeding will be affected and it raises a question how these new tools can be used to more effectively allow exchange to occur. He questioned how the public sector will use the tools to gain funding and how this will affect their programs. In the 1993 Workshop there was less emphasis on industry and more emphasis on the public sector thereby reflecting the sector change in respect to IPR. Dr. Lower noted that the legal group had learned a great deal about the biological aspects, much more so than the reverse. John Barton suggested that the Council should be thinking about development of material transfer agreements to include genetic material in U.S. genebanks and genetic resources exchanged among public sector breeders. In that regard, new language may be necessary which reflects more about the international rather than just the domestic aspect as in the current law. A brief status report of the rewrite of the Plant Breeders' Rights legislation to take into account the 1991 UPOV Treaty noted the issues of essentially derived varieties, minimum distance, and the more restrictive farmer's exemption. R. Dean Plowman's presentation at the IPR Workshop recommending a research exemption for research and breeding on patented public genetic material receiving appropriated Federal funding was provided to the Council. The concept is in agreement with the ESCOP guidelines on plant germplasm published in 1989. It was noted that this could be accomplished with language of the 1995 Farm Bill.

11. Henry Shands introduced the topic of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the post-Rio de Janeiro events. He introduced Peter Thomas from the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans, Environment and International Science (OES) and Jeff Kushan from the Patent and Trademark Office, both of whom have been involved in the assessment documents for the Clinton Administration. Dr. Thomas noted that on Earth Day the Clinton Administration announced that it would sign the Convention by the deadline June 4. The problems revolved around intellectual property rights, technology transfer and the provisions on finance. The decision was based on a detailed inter-agency review. No signing date has been set or signing statement prepared. The U.S. is working on an interpretative statement with other like-minded countries to be submitted with the instrument of ratification to set out in legal terms some of the interpretations of the more troublesome portions of the CBD since the Convention does not allow reservations or any chance of changing the existing language. It will then go to the Senate for advice and consent and ratification. Once more, the voices for and against may be heard. The decision to sign was based on the idea that it would be better to work for change from within the Conference of Parties. Since the Earth Summit, there was a technical conference put on by the African Center for Technology Studies, the UNEP Panels discussed scientific and technological research, valuation of biological resources, financial mechanism, and biosafety protocol. The biosafety protocol was a significant matter since it should not be assumed that such a protocol is really needed. The reports of the panels were presented to the Executive Director of UNEP and she will present them to the first Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) which meets in September. Approximately half of the needed 30 ratifications of the CBD to bring it into force 90 days after the 30th ratification. Jeff Kushan noted that the focus of U.S. concern is the bigger picture of technology transfer. He showed that the CBD introduced a third element beyond conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components, namely, an economic element on the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding. (Italics from Article I. Objectives) He noted that this legitimized the later articles of the CBD dealing with transfer. First, national sovereignty conditions access, mutual agreement and a modus operandus for access. More difficult is the part of rights to technologies and assurance that the technologies are transferred. Article 16 has complex language of fair and most favorable terms while still indicating that these are conditioned by mutually agreed terms and to be consistent with other paragraphs of the article. This complexity cannot be deciphered leaves much question. The Treaty has an unbalanced set of obligations in the U.S. view. The U.S. feels that there is an inadequate level of intellectual property protection since the world is not uniform in protection while imposing new obligations of the U.S. to the countries not providing adequate protection. Dr. Duvick questioned whether access is through the use of licenses but it was indicated that is not yet clear how implementation will take place to negotiate and acquire access to genetic materials. U.S. will monitor how countries regulate access and hope it will not be through the patent system but through technology transfer. The State Department will likely deal with the CBD though its functional bureaus, but there is concern that there should be a national focal point for Convention activities such as the National Biological Center which has been eclipsed by the National Biological Survey proposal which is quite a different thing. It is the responsibility of each country to establish necessary structures and mechanisms to deal with the Convention.

12. John Englert described the activities of the Plant Materials Centers (PMCs) of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to support soil and water conservation programs of the agency. While not indicated the Initial Report of the NGRP to be an participating agency, there are clearly activities in the SCS program which interface with the NPGS. ARS and SCS have an MOU providing a basis of cooperation between the two agencies for regeneration of plant materials of the NPGS. SCS has few full time people working on the project. There are 26 PMCs, and about 24 PM specialists coordinating the work in the region. He described the database listing all of the plants of North America and accepted names and standard symbols, distributional data down to county level. It includes mosses and lichens as well as higher plants. Presently, data from 35 states, two at county level, have been loaded into the database. The database will be available through Infoshare on Internet in about 3 months. Automation of the systems is being done to include in the Geological Information Service (GIS). Use has been limited since access has not been available through the computer network. There has been no linkage to the NAL. Funding has come from agencies and end users such as Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and ARS in addition to departments of highways, army and others.

13. Dick Frahm, National Program Leader for Animal Genetics Research, and Director of the Animal Genome Program located at the Cooperative State Research Service, outline the animal genome program. The report by the joint CSRS-ARS committee for the Experiment Station Committee on Operations and Policy (ESCOP) came out in 1990 and elements were integrated into the NGRP. It was agreed that CSRS would take the lead on the animal genome and ARS take the lead on animal germplasm. After the meeting in St. Louis in July 1992, it was determined that there was a need for species coordinators for cattle, pig, poultry and sheep data. Three criteria for the coordinator would be an active researcher, leadership skills to coordinate and contribution of the host institution to provide financial support to the activity. The competition for the coordinator position was recently concluded with a peer review panel advising the NGRP their recommendations. Dick Frahm and Henry Shands supported those selections before their agency Administrators: James Womack, Texas A&M - cattle; Max Rothschild, Iowa State - pig; Lyman Crittendon, Michigan State - poultry; Noelle Muggli-Cockett, Utah State - sheep. As noted in para 9 the Regional Directors' Associations and the Committee of Nine have approved a pre-proposal on a National Research Support Project for animal species coordinators at $380,000 to deal with the animal genome data. NRI grants funding basic animal genetic research have funded some genome mapping work in conjunction with gene structure and function research.

14. Tom Stetzel, representing the International Food Information Council, discussed public perceptions of biotechnology and genetic engineering based on 10 focus group surveys of 35-30 individuals in cities and nearby rural areas across the country. They found similar results in consumer attitudes between university faculty, food retailers, and blue collar worker groups regarding emotions and underlying feelings about uses of animals, food additives and transgenic activities. There was a strong feeling about questions of life in transgenic activities about what should we do. There was more natural acceptance of plant biotechnology work but concern about introduction of animal genes (arctic fish cold tolerance) into plants. Public feels strongly that science is neutral and that whether it is good or bad depends on who is using the technology and how. He noted the need to communicate more effectively about the topics with the public and provide explanations about what is being done and why. The public is concerned about failed promises due to over promises. A number of specific questions were addressed.

15. Chair Neal Jorgensen summarized the action items:

1) Director of NGRP should take action to encourage FAO to keep the International Technical Conference on track, renegotiate the IU, and try to bring about a free exchange agreements among interested governments;

2) USDA should examine the cost and benefit for a shift from free exchange Resolution (Duvick/Walton): The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council strongly urges the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with other Departments of the USG, to continue efforts, such as those already undertaken within the FAO commission on Plant Genetic Resources, to ensure the free international availability of food genetic resources. In recognition of the global trend to claim national sovereignty over and potentially to restrict access to basic genetic resources, the Council also strongly urges the Secretary to prepare a published estimate of the economic benefits of genetic resources supplied to the United States and of genetic resources supplied by the United States and to prepare contingency plans should other countries choose to restrict access to food genetic resources;

3) The NGRP should continue to coordinate and ensure support to the Vavilov Plant Breeding Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia and its network;

4) In support of the NGRP budget and database activities, Resolution (Herdt/ Walton): The Council recommends that the Department of Agriculture fully explore the possibility of becoming an active participant on the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, with particular emphasis on the needs that USDA, including the National Agricultural Library and the Agricultural Research Service have concerning information management and database associated with national genetic resources;

5) Director of NGRP should follow up development of a strategic plan for the NGRP with a) an overview of total program reporting by life forms; b) develop an outline to follow for reporting; c) call for information on the total program through a matrix to organize budget or expenditure of USDA, other organizations, and industry broken out by collection, preservation, etc. to utilization; d) request ERS support for this economic information;

6) Director of NGRP should follow up the matter of establishment of coordinating committees with professional societies and relevant life form groups as appropriate.

7) Chairman Jorgensen should develop reporting letter to Secretary Espy conveying the resolutions and emphasizing importance of NGRP to United States in support of industry and a more sustainable agriculture.

Return to: Meetings, NGRAC Home Page