Duration: 10/01/2006 to 09/30/2015

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Project's Primary Website is at http://cuke.hort.ncsu.edu/gpb/pr/pbccmain.html (direct link can be found under LINKS)

The Plant Breeding Coordinating Committee will be a forum for leadership regarding issues, problems and opportunities of long-term strategic importance to the contribution of plant breeding to national goals. The committee will create the only regular opportunity to provide such leadership across all crops. The nature of plant breeding as an integrative discipline par excellence will be reflected in multidisciplinary committee membership.

The past decade has brought major changes in the U.S. national plant breeding investment. Both the numbers of plant breeders, and their distribution across sectors and crops, has changed. In order for administrators and other decision makers to understand the implications of the changes and respond most effectively for the future, there is need for a clear analysis of the role of plant breeding for meeting national goals. Although recent changes in investment are the impetus for this committee, the need to articulate the role of plant breeding in meeting national goals is likely to be on going regardless of immediate circumstances.


Declining national investment in plant breeding.


Between 1990 and 1994, plant breeding investment declined by 2.5 scientist/years (SYs) in state agricultural experiment stations (SAESs) (Frey, NPBS, 1996). It is likely that the declining trend in public sector breeding started earlier (James, 1990). Private sector plant breeding increased over the 1990-94 period by 32 SYs per year (Frey, 1996). Trend data for 1990-1994 for the federal Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is not available. It is likely that the substantial increase in the private sector kept overall national investment on the increase in spite of public sector declines.

In contrast, between 1994 and 2001, national investment decreased overall. In the SAESs, it declined by 15 SYs per year, and in the private sector by 16 SYs per year. There was in increase in plant breeding investment in ARS of 6 SYs per year, but the net overall decline was 25 SYs per year (Traxler et al., 2005). This was a loss of about 8% of total national public and private plant breeding SYs in the seven years since 1994. The decline in classical plant breeding is likely underestimated because marker development and other breeding-related molecular genetics is included in the 2001 plant breeding data.

From about the mid-1980's to the present, education of plant breeders has become concentrated in a small number of universities (Guner and Wehner, 2003). Slightly over half of all plant breeding graduate students is a international student.



Earlier national panels and committees relevant to plant breeding.



a. National panels recommending public emphasis on basic research: For over two decades, prominent national panels (e.g., Rockefeller Foundation, 1982; NRC 1989, 1996, 2000, 2003; NIFA 2004) have recommended that federal funding for agricultural research concentrate on creating opportunities for basic research. These panels have recommended competitive grants held to relatively short-term accountability (3-5 years), with broad eligibility including entities not associated with comprehensive agricultural R&D programs. These recommendations were motivated by a search for ways to enhance the independence, quality, and national accountability of science for agriculture. Particularly in the earlier reports, agricultural research was seen as so accountable to near-term needs of farm clientele, that it would be unable to take advantage of advances in molecular genetics. This, it was felt, limited ability to conduct forward-looking research to retain global competitiveness of US agriculture, a goal seen as benefiting all citizens.

b. The National Plant Breeding Study (NPBS) and the Plant Breeding Task Force. The NPBS Task Force was drawn from the state, federal, and private sectors (Frey, 2000). The Task Forces objectives were to provide recommendations for the next decade for major issues facing plant breeding (Frey, 2000). They recognized new trends impacting plant breeding, including changes in the application of intellectual property rights (see, for example, Price, 1999) , and the arrival of molecular tools for plant breeding. They noted that the public sector is critical for education; availability and value-adding uses of genetic resources; integration of molecular tools; breeding for specialty crops; and development of alternative crops for preparedness when changes in the societal or natural environments impact U.S. agriculture. These are long-term activities with inherent risk, such that the private sector is unable to invest in them. Solid public research and education must come first. To address these needs, the NPBS Task Force recommended:



· A plant breeding education task force

· A task force on public-private collaboration for efficiency

Two national R&D plans:

o Genepool enrichment of U.S. crops (recommended $50 mil./yr funding)

o Breeding programs for minor crops (via the Fund for Rural America).



The NPBS was a milestone in the self-understanding of modern plant breeding. Its data are respected and widely used in research. The Task Force recommendations continue to challenge us today. For a range of reasons, however, its recommendations did not materialize. It is likely that the obstacles could have been worked through had there been a stable committee structure in place to learn from experience, explore alternative ways to achieve the most important goals, and most important of allpass on responsibilities to successors. Unlike a multi-state committee, the NPBS depended on the heroic efforts of the Task Force and lacked a way to carry on when the individual members could no longer devote the level of attention required.

Approach: Structure and continuity in support of leadership

A multi-state committee structure will provide a way to focus and sustain leadership for strategic issues in plant breeding. Such a committee will also provide visibility for plant breeding in databases of state and federal research, where presently it is largely invisible (hundreds of projects involve plant breeding but most are, rightly, titled according to the objectives rather than the methods used). Most importantly, a coordinating committee structure allows the contribution of many individuals from all sectors, and provides for continuity.

Objectives

Procedures and Activities

Current status.


A draft proposal for the Plant Breeding CC has been approved by the SAAESD and given a temporary project number. The committee invites participation from all states. It is sponsored by the SAAESD because the range of crops in plant breeding programs in the southern region is the most inclusive. There is no national CC designation.

Focus group meetings to develop the Plant Breeding CC have been held at project and professional meetings, including ASHS July 05, BIC Oct 05, CSSA Nov 05, ASTA/NCCPB Dec 05, and PAG Jan 06 (see acronyms list). Weekly conference calls and email discussions have been used to explore national interest, develop ownership, and create a slate of ideas for the first set of deliverables.

Next steps.

A planning committee will begin organizing a national workshop to be held (tentative date) Winter 2006/07. Requests for a national workshop emerged during the formation process in 2005, after the first draft proposal was submitted. The intensity of interest in this committee was a surprise and reveals a widespread sense of need for such a forum. The plant breeding community is ready to get to work, and is asking for opportunities to develop more specific direction without further delay.

The national workshop will finalize a work plan for the first 2 to 5 years, with deliverables and milestones; establish subcommittees for each deliverable; and elect a first slate of officers. Subcommittees will then work toward their planned milestones and deliverables. As currently foreseen, in interim years, CC annual meetings will take place at relevant professional society meetings such as ASHS and CSSA. The CC will report annually and evolve its plans as it learns from experience.

Deliverables:

The following list is compiled from suggestions by plant breeders and multidisciplinary colleagues during the formation process of 2005 and early 2006. One or a few will be chosen for further development in the first two- to five-year work plan.

· Develop a vision for the future of the national plant breeding effort.


· Where should plant breeding be positioned as a discipline and a national enterprise, 10 -20 years from now?


· How will the U.S. obtain plant-breeding services in the future?


· How will plant breeding be funded and structured?


· What will be the public and private roles?


· Who will educate plant breeders? What do they need to know?



· Develop descriptors for plant breedings relevance, excellence, accountability, and impact--for use by evaluators, communicators, administrators and other decision makers

· Develop tools/ materials for communicating about plant breeding to persons unfamiliar with this discipline, i.e. for those not in the choir

· Assess any gaps in national plant breeding effort, such as needs or emergencies for which there are no candidate materials; and identify research and/or coordination priorities.

· Analyze plant breedings benefits for national goals (USDA REE, 2003-08), and specific state goals such as jobs. These are goals that people have already bought into. They include

· Excellence in science and technology education

· An agricultural system highly competitive in the global economy

· A safe and secure food and fiber system

· A healthy, well-nourished population

· Harmony between agriculture and environment

· Economic opportunity in rural areas, quality of life for all Americans

For each goal: Prepare a succinct analysis of status, role, and vision for plant breeding, including actual and potential contribution to solving problems/creating opportunities, current investment, public-private division of labor, partnerships, resources and needs. This analysis will help to define and justify if and why plant breeding is important; identify broad-based partnerships and opportunities for plant breeding; and permit alignment with current interests, policies and trends.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Educational Plan

The education plan of this multi-state committee will build on the work of the NPBS Task Force, and on the recent work of a symposium/workshop on education for plant breeding organized in Marcy 2005 by the Plant Breeding and Genetics Group at Michigan State University (Hancock, 2005). The committee will seek strategies to implement the recommendations of these groups regarding content and resources for formal education of plant breeders. It may also consider outreach to enhance awareness among the general public who are often unaware that they are stakeholders in plant breeding.

Organization/Governance

Standard

Literature Cited

Frey, K. J. 2000. National Plant Breeding Study-IV: Future priorities for Plant Breeding. Special Report 102. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station.

Frey, K. J. 1966. National Plant Breeding Study-I: Human and Financial Resources Devoted to Plant Breeding Research and Development in the United States in 1994. Special Report 98. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station.

Guner, N. and T. C. Wehner. 2003. Survey of U.S. land-grant universities for training of plant breeding students. Crop Scio. 43:1938-1944.

Hancock, J. 2005 (unpublished report). Summary of a symposium on plant breeding and the public sector. Plant Breeding and Genetics Group, Michigan State U. March 9-11, 2005. East Lansing, MI.

James, N.J. 1990. A survey of public breeding programs in the U.S. Diversity 6:32-22.

National Research Council (NRC), Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2003. Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment, and Communities. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

National Research Council (NRC), Board on Ag. and Natl. Resources. 2000.

National Research Initiative: A vital competitive grants program in food, fiber, and natural-resources research. Natl. Acad. Press. Wash., D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities. Public service and public policy. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

National Research Council (NRC), Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1989. Investing in research: A proposal to strengthen the agricultural, food, and environmental system. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Price, S. 1999. Public and private plant breeding. Letter to the Editor, Nature Biotech. 17(10):938. Oct. 1999.

REE Task Force. 2004. National Institute for Food and Agriculture: A proposal. (NIFA) (The Danforth Report). Report of the Research, Education, and Economics Task Force of the USDA. July 2004.

Rockefeller Foundation. 1982. Science for agriculture. (The Winrock Report). New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Traxler, G. A. Acquaye, K. J. Frey , A. M. Thro. 2005. Public Plant Breeding Resources in the US: Study Results for the year 2001. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/plants/in_focus/ptbreeding_if_study.html

USDA REE. USDA Research, Education, and Economics 2003-2008 Strategic Plan
(http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ree/strategic_plan.htm)


Acronyms


ARD Association of Research Directors

ASHS American Society for Horticultural Science

ASTA American Seed Trade Association

BIC Bean Improvement Council

CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

CSSA Crop Science Society of America

NCCPB National Council of Commercial Plant Breeders

PAG Plant and Animal Genome Meetings

SAAESD Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Southern Illinois University, University of Florida, USDA, USDA-ARS, USDA-ARS/Iowa, Utah