Meeting May 16-17, 1995 - National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC)

Executive Summary
Fourth Meeting May 16-17, 1995

1. The fourth meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held May 16-17, 1995, in Washington, D.C. In attendance were eight appointed members and six ex officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by John Barton, selected by the Secretary. The Council elected Richard Lower to serve as vice chair. The reappointed members present from the previous Council were John Barton, Marjorie Hoy, and Neal Jorgensen. New appointees present were: Tom Adams, Mary Berlyn, Suzanne Hendrich, Richard Lower, and Robert Rhoades. Mike Balick, new appointee, was not present.

2. The Council was welcomed by Darwin Murrell, Acting Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in the absence of R.D. Plowman and officials of the Under Secretary's office. He spoke briefly on the important changes going on in Congress and the Administration and their potential impact on the genetic resources program.

3. Reports on the current status of the Federal budget reductions and the potential impact on the National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP) were discussed with the Council by Henry Shands, Director, NGRP, and Rachel Levinson, OSTP. While genetic resource conservation is of high priority to the USDA, it is not immune from potential cuts. Shands noted the general reduction in number of scientists in ARS as a result of less available funding for research programs and increased operating costs. Genetic resources projects have fared relatively well in general.

4. The Council addressed significant issues on international agreements, including the renegotiation of the FAO's International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, material transfer agreements, and U.S. germplasm collections.

5. The Council emphasized the need to establish a strategic plan for the NGRP. The scope of the plan was debated as to whether the word "national" in the title refers to the USDA programs only, or whether the program is truly national in scope and how it should be coordinated at national level. This Council determined that it would like to have the different lifeforms separated and that Council members will provide some specifics about their particular lifeform interest.

6. The Council made the following recommendations:

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.

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. 

Recommendations for Microbial Germplasm. Given that microorganisms are of extreme importance to agriculture, given that the USDA has a considerable investment in microbial research and collections, and given that the broad microbiology community nationally and internationally are currently initiating assessments of collections and information systems for microbiology, the NGRAC recommends that the USDA take an active role and participate in these planning activities. The Council also recommends that current collections receive funding for continued maintenance and development, as many of these are of exceptional value and are unique (e.g., collections of actinomycetes, plant pathogens, soil microbes, and the USDA Peoria laboratory's collection of microbes for industrial uses).

Recommendation on Plant Germplasm. The NGRAC recognizes the extreme importance of the National Plant Germplasm System for past, present, and future agricultural research and development and is very concerned about the deterioration of funding. It recommends strong funding for the NPGS to enable it to continue its exchange, exploration, quarantine, and information management activities, the Plant Genome Program, and especially notes the National Seed Storage Laboratory's needs for funding for preservation research and preservation activities.

Recommendation on Insect Germplasm. Cryoprotective techniques have been developed recently for the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster. The NGRAC recommends that funds be found to support research designed to develop cryopreservation techniques for key pest and beneficial arthropod species other than Drosophila. Such methods will ensure that valuable genetic stocks can be maintained for the improvement of agriculture and pest management programs.

The next meeting of the Council was proposed for and has been subsequently confirmed for September 18-19, 1995. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Prepared by Henry L. Shands Edited by NGRAC June 15, 1995 NGRACNational Genetic Resources Advisory Council Bldg. 005, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center - West Beltsville, Maryland 20705 Telephone: (301) 504-5059; FAX: (301) 504-6699 

Final Summary of Fourth Meeting MAY 16-17, 1995

1. The fourth meeting of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) was held May 16-17, 1995, in Washington, D.C. In attendance were eight appointed members and six ex officio members or their designates. The NGRAC is chaired by John Barton, selected by the Secretary. The Council elected Richard Lower to serve as vice chair. The reappointed members present from the previous Council are John Barton, Marjorie Hoy, and Neal Jorgensen. New appointees present were: Tom Adams, Mary Berlyn, Suzanne Hendrich, Richard Lower, and Robert Rhoades. Mike Balick, new appointee, was not present.

2. The Council was welcomed by Darwin Murrell, Acting Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in the absence of ARS Administrator R.D. Plowman and officials of the Under Secretary's office, who were at the confirmation hearing of Under Secretary nominee, Karl Stauber. Murrell spoke to the important changes going on in Congress and the Administration and their potential impact on the genetic resources program. Murrell noted that the FY 96 budget includes the proposed closure of two locations having plant germplasm: Miami, Florida, and Brownwood, Texas. There is considerable local political activity in an attempt to keep each center open. The germplasm at Miami is scheduled to go to Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and Hilo, Hawaii, while the pecan germplasm at Brownwood would be moved to a site near College Station, Texas. Focusing on the budget, he noted that the budget committees are looking at serious cuts but that the appropriations committees will be relating the numbers to the agencies within their jurisdiction. Murrell asked the Council to help the ARS prioritize the genetic resources program activities relative to potential future cuts. A practical example of the need was described for the development of the animal genebank facility at Beltsville, Maryland, and the lack of needed funding ($450-500,000) to operate it.

3. Henry Shands, Director, National Genetic Resources Program (NGRP), provided the Council with a summary of the USDA reorganization and reinvention activities as they affected ARS. He provided the members with organizational charts showing the merger of the National Agricultural Library into ARS, the union of the Cooperative State Research Service and Extension Service into the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and the integration of those two with the Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistical Service into the new mission area, Research, Education, and Economics, headed by Under Secretary Stauber. He noted that the National Performance Review I had set goals for smaller agencies which ARS is meeting without much difficulty at present. Those reductions are driven by program reductions arising from the fact that, with no new funds, there is often insufficient funding to support a new hire upon the departure of a scientist. Each scientist averages 2.7 support personnel who may be reassigned as is the money. He noted that among the ARS location closures of FY 95, the tobacco collection at Oxford, North Carolina, was to remain at Oxford in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with North Carolina State University which took over the facility and breeding program and the associated germplasm collection.

4. Rachel Levinson (detailed to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, as Assistant Director for Life Sciences from her position at the National Institutes of Health) provided the Council with an overview of the budget process and priority setting within agencies. She described the real cut of half of the discretionary budget over the last several years. The new approach will be to focus on long-term, non-commercial science. Government scientific laboratories will confine their efforts to research useful to industry but which cannot be done by industry. Noting that the budget committees are talking about affecting the FY 96 budget, the impact will be immediate, not merely a long-term goal that might be adjusted in future action. She noted that current Congressional budgets would cause research levels to fall to 1.5% of GDP, half of the goal set by the OSTP Forum of 1994 for developing countries.

5. An overview of the NGRP focused on the changes since the first report to the Council in 1992. Roger Gerrits, ARS, National Program Staff, reported on the goals of the animal germplasm program which are jointly carried out with Canada. The North American goals: 1) maintain genetic diversity in domestic animals; and 2) identify, conserve, evaluate and utilize existing genetic diversity to meet future needs. He went on to describe the progress toward an animal germplasm database in the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) database and establishment of the animal genebank at Beltsville. He emphasized that the ARS related breeding and genomic research as essential to the program. In particular, he noted the need to implement the animal genebank to save valuable germplasm (sperm, zygotes, ova, or stem cells) as other institutions close out animal programs. He also noted the need for practical research on storing germplasm in cryopreservation since the procedures have not been worked out for all species.

6. Richard Frahm, CSREES, National Program Leader for Animal Genetics, gave an overview on the animal genome program, and the genome database structure provided by funding of four species coordinators from the Regional Directors Associations' off-the-top funding of National Research Support Project-8. Effort is underway to incorporate the animal genome work in the NAL along with the plant genome data. Long-term funding has not been identified for the NAL to develop the animal genome database. He noted the effort to involve the international community. He showed the number of genetic markers on the various species maps and the number of scientists involved in the mapping effort.

7. Jerry Miksche, ARS, National Program Leader for the Plant Genome, discussed the progress of the effort and showed the breakdown of approximately $71 million spent to date to map the plant genome. Part of the funding is internal ARS funding and part administered by Ed Kaleikau of the National Research Initiative (NRI) grant program. Noting that chromosome synteny among species has accelerated program progress, he indicated that the distribution of funds had helped develop many crop species maps and that these map data could lead to more efficient management of collections via the core collection concept (10 percent of the accessions contain about 71 percent of the genetic diversity).

8. The plant germplasm program overview was provided by Steve Eberhart, Director of the National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL). He noted that 79 percent of seed accessions and 63 percent of clonal accessions are available for distribution. Forty percent of seed collections are not in security backup at NSSL while 16 percent of NSSL germplasm is no longer available at the active collection site. Considerable research is needed on how to store clonal collections outside of orchard sites since 99 percent of these collections are not secured through alternative measures (tissue culture or cryopreservation). Eberhart noted the progress with preserving apple tree budwood in cryopreservation and a new effort with mint. Other species are being evaluated for cryopreservation. Eberhart echoed Miksche's statement that core collections will be helpful in the future and described how the crop germplasm committees were approaching the analysis of their crops.

9. The international overview focused on activities of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources (CPGR) and the renegotiation of the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU), the FAO International Technical Conference (ITC), and the status of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Cary Fowler, FAO Program Director for the ITC, described the component efforts of the ministerial level 1996 ITC scheduled for June 17-23, 1996, at Leipzig, Germany, as 1) the State of the World's Genetic Resources Report, and 2) the Global Plan of Action Report. He indicated the structure and geographical balance of his staff, the country study process, the country and regional briefings, and the content of the reports. Peter Day, Rutgers University and former chair of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences study on Managing Global Genetic Resources, will serve as a consultant in putting together the reports. Fowler indicated that they would be ready by the end of 1995, in time to give countries a chance to digest and relate to the recommendations. Some 40 country reports have been received of an expected 120 plus. The Council was interested in how the report would deal with gaps, priorities, detail on species, management savings, new efforts and in situ approaches. Fowler said that through a combination of processes, the gaps, and priorities and recommendations for savings would be reached and that fine details would not be addressed.

10. Wayne Denney (USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service-International Cooperation and Development) provided an overview on the U.S.'s participation in the CPGR since its formation in 1985. Noting that the U.S. had opposed its creation and that the U.S., along with Canada and Japan, was opposed to participating until joining in 1990, he suggested that it was the Council's predecessor, the National Plant Genetic Resources Board, that had in effect facilitated the U.S. entry into the CPGR. Denney had received a brief report of the May 3-5, 1995, CPGR Work Group meeting that suggested that the previous divisiveness and North-South tensions continue to exist in respect to attacks on the Union for the Protection of Newly Developed Plant Varieties (UPOV), attempts to incorporate issues on technology transfer (Art. 16 of the CBD) and the continued use of farmers' rights as a theme for compensation from North to South.

11. Melinda Kimble, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Issues, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State, discussed the current proposed budget cuts for support to international organizations. Congress has cut large sums from the current biennial budgets, eliminated the arrears payments, cut future budgets significantly, and indicated that it will not pay the full assessments to the UN organizations. Some in Congress have indicated that UN reforms and downsizing must take place and that it will not provide funds for executing the CITES, RAMSAR, and Montreal Protocol, all activities of regulatory nature. By the year 2000, the State Department budget will be 50 percent of the 1984 level. She noted that in such a budget situation, there will not be funds to support many good UN activities. It points to an end of development assistance and the need to look to alternative approaches, such as cooperative interactions and partnerships. She noted that many of the recent negotiations focusing on some of the same issues are already at an impasse and hopes that the negotiations on the International Undertaking at FAO will offer some new solutions.

12. Peter Thomas, Biodiversity Officer at Department of State, with the activities of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), discussed the main efforts at the first Conference of Parties (COP). He explained that the lack of the U.S. ratification at the first COP was not a problem since a number of other countries had not ratified the CBD but that it would be a problem at the second COP in November 1995. With the many issues before Congress, the question is when there will be an opportunity to put it on the agenda again.

13. Vanessa Laird, Attorney Advisor at Department of State, described the linkage of the renegotiation of the FAO International Undertaking and the interest of the COP. Some of the difficulties include defining what the IU should be, what are farmers' rights and how to implement them, getting the process down to a scientific basis, and the emergence of various uses of the term farmers' rights in other UN fora. She noted that the endpoint of the renegotiation is not clear yet as it may be voluntary, binding, or a protocol to the CBD, depending on the outcome.

14. Rob Bertram, Agricultural Science Specialist, USAID, gave a brief update of the status of availability of germplasm collections of the international agricultural research centers under the auspices of FAO. He noted that the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a very functional multilateral activity which would not be possible under bilateral arrangements. The centers hold some 600,000 germplasm accessions, all received prior to the entry into force of the CBD (29 December 1993). The centers are circulating some new draft material transfer agreements on germplasm distribution to protect the rights of the providing countries. Wolfgang Siebeck, consultant to the CGIAR, indicated that the free circulation of germplasm was central to the success of the international program and, without it, the program will come to a halt. John Matuszak, AAAS Fellow and Biodiversity Officer at Department of State, noted the importance of the global system of international centers in underpinning global food security and that security can only be assumed if free movement and open access to genetic resources is continued as part of the long-term food strategy. Robert Rhoades said that when he was with IRRI and CIP that it was understood that they would not be funded forever and questioned whether they might revert to basic germplasm activities which Bertram acknowledged as possibly the only activity they might end up with.

15. John Matuszak responded to the Council's discussion on U.S. Government (USG) coordination of policy matters and reaffirmed the close coordination among different agencies. The involvement of State, Agriculture, Commerce (Patent and Trademark Office), and Treasury, on the negotiating team at FAO and, for the CBD, additional members from EPA and Interior, completes the Federal component. Members from States, NGOs, and the private sector have participated in shaping U.S. policy along with numerous Federal agencies and their legal counsels.

16. The Council reviewed prior resolutions to determine the actions taken and the NGRAC's impact on the program. The first Council resolution reviewed, from December 1993, was that the USDA develop a seed storage category at NSSL to accommodate protected (i.e. by trade secret agreement) germplasm for the benefit of both the U.S. and other countries desiring to store materials for a reasonable period. This category has been developed, and Steve Eberhart of NSSL described the status of the MOU with the Crop Science Society of America, which will be submitting the proposal to its membership. Some Council members raised the issue of whether a storage fee should be charged, and an ensuing discussion pointed out that such fees would not benefit the NSSL because of the increased costs they would generate. The second Council resolution reviewed, from December 1993, concerned the development of an acceptable universal material transfer agreement (MTA) in concert with the CGIAR which would help define the terms of access and protect exchanged material from being patented. Shands indicated that the CGIAR's attempt to establish such an MTA has not been accepted by the centers and that he was following the effort closely. An MTA (variation of the centers' draft) was sent to the USDA by one of the centers, but it does not follow the free-flow concept which was purported to be CGIAR policy. The Council expressed interest in following this further and asked that a further resolution be developed (paragraph 17). The third Council resolution reviewed, from December 1993, concerned the responsiveness of the USDA to the previous NGRAC's concerns. It was noted that there is a new Secretary (Glickman), a new Under Secretary (Stauber), a difficult budget situation, and no additional support to the NGRP at ARS Headquarters. The Council expressed interest in taking its case for the NGRP to the Secretary and, later, with Murrell's assistance, was given the information that Stauber would be pleased to meet with them and help facilitate a meeting with the Secretary. The Council discussed the lack of the germplasm community's support for the germplasm activities but emphasized that it was the USDA's responsibility to preserve and enhance germplasm.

17. 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.

18. Calvin Bey, Director of Forest Management Research, USFS, spoke to the Council on the Forest Service program, noting the evolution in tree conservation and improvement programs over the past 40 years, including the balance of Federal, State, and industry efforts. There is no centralized genetic resources effort and there has been a shift toward biotechnological approaches in genetics research. Bey said that most foresters feel that we really haven't lost genetic resources. He noted that the emphasis until about 1980 focused on mass selection and establishing large numbers of tree seed orchards due to cutting 12-18 billion board feet (bbft) per year. Since that number is now down to about 6 bbft per year under the multi-use plan for forests, the emphasis has changed with a reduction of genetic work since the philosophy is that, in natural stands, the genes will always be there. The FS has reduced emphasis on tree improvement programs and is relying on natural regeneration of stands. The seed laboratory at Macon, Georgia (three scientists), has focused primarily on seed handling and germination techniques. However, he noted that many species, particularly the oaks, are recalcitrant seed types and need cryopreservation research and that an MOU is under development with NSSL where considerable expertise exists. He expressed interest in collecting and preserving the unusual tree genotypes. Many tree stands, especially in the eastern U.S., are approaching 100 years in age since replanting at the turn of the century and there is a need to conduct salvage and renovate the forests. It was pointed out that the Forest Service activities are funded, not through the Agriculture appropriations sub-committees, but through Interior and Related Affairs, since there is such a large land management activity in Interior.

19. Considerable discussion focused on development of a strategic plan for the overall genetic resources program. The fundamental scope of the plan was debated as to whether the word "national" in the title refers to the USDA program only, or whether is truly national in scope and how it should be coordinated at the national level. It was noted that ARS is one of the players and has a long-term commitment to the activity. It was emphasized that a strategic plan could raise awareness and get the support of new partners. The plan should make assumptions, focus on food security, contribute to the long-term sustainability of agriculture, help the environment, and be a true national plan. While the breeders are one major user, there are many others not supporting the program. Shands discussed what had been presented to the first Council and that the feedback on the lumping or splitting approach had not been resolved. This Council determined that it would like to have the lifeforms separated and that identified Council members will provide Shands with some specifics for their particular lifeform interest. All submissions to Shands need to be to him by July 1, 1995. Since the discussion raised the question of priorities, the Council must address those between and within lifeforms. After the document is assembled and reviewed, it is hoped that it will be in nearly final form for discussion at the next meeting.

20. The Council discussed the priorities for animals in the NGRP and questioned what the priorities are. They indicated that they expect the National Animal Germplasm Program (NAGP) to come forth with clear recommendations for what will be collected and made part of the genebank collection. The question was raised whether core collections are appropriate for dealing with animal germplasm and what criteria would be used. The discussion concerning the animal genome data focused on whether the data should continue to be housed at Jackson Laboratories or at the NAL. Since it is at Jackson for a limited time, it was indicated that the NAL is the logical choice as the permanent home in the future. There is no funding at NAL to develop or manage the animal genome database at present, but establishing a node at NAL to initiate the process would involve relatively low cost. The Council proposed that the genebank be developed, the NAGP develop a collection plan, and that a node be established at NAL for the genomic database.

21. Recommendation for Animal Germplasm. The National Animal Germplasm and Genome Resources Program Committee recommended the development of a National Animal Germplasm Coordinating Committee (NAGCC) and an ARS National Animal Germplasm Program (NAGP). The NAGCC recommended the establishment of long-term storage repositories for animal germplasm based on the following criteria: availability of existing ARS facilities; accessibility to major transportation hubs for distribution; presence of cryobiological technology and ongoing preservation research at the location; and ability to provide adequate security systems. ARS has prepared such a facility at its Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. The NGRAC recommended that: 1) the NAGP Program Leader (ARS) and the NAGCC develop a plan for the management of animal germplasm, including a) priorities for germplasm storage, b) database, c) linkage of germplasm database with the genome database, d) mechanism 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 only of animal germplasm. The Council proposed that the genebank be developed, the NAGP develop a collection plan and a plan for long-term maintenance and administration of the database, and that a node be established at the NAL for the genomic database.

22. The Council discussed the extensive microbial germplasm activities outside the USDA's efforts and took note of the recent National Research Council-sponsored meeting to consider whether a study should be conducted. Several database activities such as the Microbial World Data Center in Japan focusing on medically interesting microbes, the Oregon State University Microbial Database focusing on plant pathogenic microbes, the proposed federated database at Michigan State University's Center for Microbial Ecology, and the American Type Culture Collection were discussed. The GRIN database was noted not to have information in it at the present time. It was noted that storage is generally quite cheap and many strains can be stored in a small space in cryopreservation. The Council stated that there should be a plan to handle collections when funding collapses. Cases of collections being split up, sold off, and otherwise not properly handled in the best manner were noted. One particular concern at present is the Department of Energy's thermophilic collections may be a problem if the deep budget cuts do occur. The Council proposed that the USDA become involved in a national census of collections and database activities.

23. Recommendation for Microbial Germplasm. Given that microorganisms are of extreme importance to agriculture, given that the USDA has a considerable investment in microbial research and collections, and given that the broad microbiology community nationally and internationally are currently initiating assessments of collections and information systems for microbiology, the NGRAC recommends that the USDA take an active role and participate in these national planning activities. The Council also recommends that current collections receive funding for continued maintenance and development, as many of these are of exceptional value and are unique (e.g., collections of actinomycetes, plant pathogens, soil microbes, and the Peoria laboratory's collection of microbes for industrial uses).

24. Concern about insect collections focused on the need to have them available as natural enemies for biological control. Thousands of beneficial arthropods provide significant benefit to U.S. agriculture as biological control agents or pollinators of crops. There is an increased emphasis in the USA on non-pesticidal control tactics, including genetic manipulation of pest arthropods to reduce their impact on humans, crop plants, domestic animals, and the environment. However, it is extremely difficult to maintain the genetic integrity of arthropods in culture. Thus, a method for preserving arthropod germplasm is a limiting factor in the more extensive deployment of arthropods as biological control agents or genetically-modified pest or beneficial arthropods. The current methods of preservation of pest and beneficial arthropod colonies is expensive, inefficient, and ineffective in maintaining genetic integrity because they must be maintained continuously.

25. Recommendation on Insect Germplasm. Cryoprotective techniques have been developed recently for the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster. The NGRAC recommends that funds be found to support research designed to develop cryopreservation techniques for key pest and beneficial arthropod species other than Drosophila. Such methods will ensure that valuable genetic stocks can be maintained for the improvement of agriculture and pest management programs.

26. In response to Wayne Denney's request, the Council discussed plant germplasm sharing and exchange with developing countries. It brought out the point that the U.S. has had an opportunity to return collections to a number of countries which had not had the capability of securing them. In the meantime, the U.S. has developed new and useful germplasm which has been provided at no cost to developing countries. The U.S. has played a major role in training foreign graduate level students through cooperative programs, many supported by USAID funding over the past 45 years. Those contacts have been helpful to both the U.S. and the developing country. Graduate students are given a quality education utilizing the latest in technology and learning the newest techniques. Continuing to provide education would seem to be one of the most important benefits that could be offered. Regarding funding, the Council questioned whether a trust fund such as the BARD trust fund for cooperative projects with Israel could be established for genetic resources activities. The Council noted that the U.S. should continue to participate in plant collecting trips or else there would be further loss of genetic resources worldwide. The Council asked the chair to prepare a letter to Mr. Denney emphasizing this educational exchange.

27. Richard Lower provided the Council with information about a proposal from the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) Germplasm Subcommittee which is seeking funding for a program to protect germplasm collections and to establish competitive grants on germplasm enhancement. It is proposed that a person be made available to USDA under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) for about 6-12 months to develop the proposal in detail. State and ARS scientists would be able to compete for the grant funds much as is the case under the National Research Initiative grants program. The ESCOP Executive Committee has discussed and endorsed the proposal, and the Council endorsed the proposal in principle.

28. Henry Shands discussed the situation with the NPGS collections and his concern about the erosion of funding to the NPGS preventing proper care and distribution of germplasm. He stated that as of October 1995, over 25 percent of the accessions were unavailable, and this percentage is increasing because of the increased number of germplasm accessions acquired in recent years, particularly of types difficult to regenerate. One quarter of the samples at NSSL did not meet the long-term storage viability goal of 65 percent germination, even though NPGS requires 85 percent. Backlogs of growouts are as much as 20 years for some species based on current rates of regeneration and this does not count current and projected acquisitions of difficult types. Lastly, he noted that the database needs review as to accuracy and that there are many data which need to be uploaded from the active sites.

29. Recommendation on Plant Germplasm. The NGRAC recognizes the extreme importance of the National Plant Germplasm System for past, present, and future agricultural research and development and is very concerned about the deterioration of funding. It recommends strong funding for the NPGS to enable it to continue its exchange, exploration, quarantine, and information management activities, the Plant Genome Program, and especially notes the NSSL's needs for funding for preservation research and preservation activities.

30. The NGRAC identified the issues it wishes to discuss at the next meeting. These emphasize work on a strategic plan, to be based on the work already conducted by Dr. Shands and on the drafts to be prepared by Council members during the interim. The Council particularly hopes to help develop a vision of the future of genetic resource conservation in a time of increased budget constraint and novel technological developments. And it hopes to compare this vision against the actual status of collection and database programs with respect to different species and to explore the possibility of supporting conservation through alliances with breeders who use genetic resources. Further, it hopes to obtain presentations on several specific issues, including the status of genetic resource conservation with respect to aquaculture and a review of Drosophila cryopreservation program. 31. The next meeting of the Council was proposed for and has been subsequently confirmed for September 18-19, 1995. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Prepared by Henry L. Shands
Edited by NGRAC
June 15, 1995

Return to: Meetings, NGRAC Home Page