6.1 Sustainability
6.2 Global Climate Change
6.3 Biotechnology
6.4 Strengthening NARS
6.5 Social Science and Policy Research
6.6 Gender Issues
6.7 Intellectual Property Protection
6.8 Managing Research Data
6.9 Conclusions
The work of a scientific institute such as IRRI has its own dynamic. Its research generates a new set of problems, sometimes directly and sometimes as the results of the research being applied in the field. The institute then needs to examine that set of problems.
But IRRI has also to respond to external changes. Some emerge from the progress of science in general, which opens up new possibilities for IRRI's researchers. Some arise because of changes in the perception of its stakeholders. Issues which did not matter in the past become of pressing concern.
This chapter discusses several issues on which both external and internal changes have affected IRRI's programmes, and examines how IRRI has responded to them.
IRRI's stated goal is the improved well-being of present and future generations of farmers and consumers, particularly those with low incomes. The inclusion of future generations of farmers places long-term sustainability as a central concern. Asia, the region with which IRRI is most concerned, is experiencing continued population growth, which although decelerating, is still high by historical standards. Consequently IRRI has always striven for rapid growth of production, and it will still have to continue to do so. But its strategy now stresses that the production growth that is achieved must be sustainable in the long run.
Even though the term 'sustainability' has only recently come in vogue, IRRI has long had research relating to natural resource management pertaining in particular to irrigated rice and its production environment. For IRRI, the issue has always been the sustainability of the production systems in which rice is an important component. Some of the sustainability issues which the Institute has addressed previously included:
· long-term trials which began at the IRRI Farm not long after establishment of the Institute in 1961, and which now provide much valuable data on the issue;· nutrient availability and efficiency in production systems (in part, through INSURF);
· production methods to reduce internal and external inputs, integrated nutrient management, land resource management, and development of methodologies for rice research in different production environments.
· studies of less-favoured rice production systems in the Asian Rice Farming Systems Network (ARFSN);
· breeding rice with greater pest and disease resistance and greater tolerance of abiotic stresses;
· understanding pest-damage threshold levels, designing IPM strategies, and measuring the impact of biocides on target and non-target organisms.
Today, IRRI has embarked on an even more ambitious effort to organize research around four production ecosystems. To the extent that sustainability questions can only be understood through a broader understanding of the interrelationships of the various elements of an ecosystem, then the new approach can address them more directly. Perhaps IRRI's most challenging task is to understand and begin to retard the prospect of declining yields in the most productive ricelands-a phenomenon that IRRI first drew attention to.
IRRI's capability to address sustainability issues is based on a long history of past research on some of the key questions. Currently, it has a large number of projects on this issue, which cover an extremely broad area, almost to the point where concern may be expressed whether breadth has not been purchased at the expense of depth. This concern can be raised, even if we are to exclude from consideration the large global climate change programme, which we shall discuss next.
The rising concern with global climate change problem is of particular concern to rice scientists, for the finger of blame is pointed to rice paddies as main emitters of greenhouse gases. IRRI took up the challenge in its strategic plan. Strikingly, warming trends are mentioned on page 1 of its plan, ahead of population trends which had normally been cited as the chief reason for doing rice research.
In recent years, IRRI has developed a large set of projects in global climate change, supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further support is expected from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The EPA programme, a complex of research on several topics of interest to IRRI and EPA, is well underway. The UNDP-supported research is still being planned.
Levels of support for the projects are: EPA, US$6.7 million for five years, and UNDP (expected), US$8 million for five years9. The Panel was told that about US$1 million of IRRI core funds are also allocated to this research effort.
9 Presentation of Research Programme to the Programme Committee, 21-22 September 1992. p.4.
The EPA/IRRI component consists of six basic studies relating to global climate change: (1) direct effects of ultraviolet-B (UVB) on rice, (2) direct effects of CO2 and temperature on rice, (3) rice modelling, (4) effects of UVB, CO2 and temperature on pests, (5) effects of UVB, CO2 and temperature on diseases, and (6) methane emissions from irrigated rice fields. The EPA project is nearing the end of its second year of operation, the whole effort is administered within the Irrigated Rice Programme. Each of the six activity categories of the EPA project is handled by IRRI research divisions. An agronomist from the APPA Division is Project Coordinator. Some 6 or 7 IRS are involved in the project, with perhaps 1.5 to 2 full time equivalents.
The UNDP component is planned as a regional activity on methane emissions in Asia. It will entail 16 monitoring and research field units like the one currently being used at IRRI for methane emission studies, with one unit to be installed in each of four key sites in four countries; probably China, Indonesia, India and Thailand. The effort will probably require a research network and baseline-data-gathering network. A Project Coordinator has not been announced yet for this work.
There are two other small activities in global change at IRRI involving a Wageningen University graduate student who worked here on methane emissions and a Rockefeller Foundation Environmental Fellow who has just arrived and will work on nitrous oxide emissions as they relate to on-going methane emission studies. Other cooperation in the work included a team from the Universities of Georgia and Guelph who evaluated a new monitoring system for methane emissions.
These sets of activities in global climate change comprise a large effort, with perhaps nearly US$15 million investment by special project donors over a five to seven year period. Much of the work is strategic in nature, relating either directly to effects of various factors on rice itself, to some of its diseases or pests, or to its major production environment, flooded rice. It will also quantify the relationship between observed meteorological variables and crop needs more precisely. IRRI is almost certain to gain new information about rice from these studies.
The Panel thus agrees with IRRI's decision to embark on this work. It would merely observe that although additional resources are being brought in to conduct this research, there are two hidden costs to these funds. The first is the diversion of some of IRRI's personnel to this task, personnel that could be used to conduct research of more immediate concern to rice farmers. The second arises from the fact donors do not fully cover the indirect costs of projects, and hence there is some subsidy by unrestricted funds to the special project.
IRRI's biotechnological research is at present conducted in three areas: starting with tissue culture, proceeding on to gene tagging and finally to transformations.
Tissue Culture: In the early 1980's cell culture was used to obtain salinity tolerant rice. To accelerate quick acquisition of homozygous lines, anther culture is effectively used to breed for tolerance to salinity, cold weather and blast resistance. Embryo culture has been successfully used in wide crossings involving wild rice species, which became essential material to breed rice with highly durable resistance to diseases and insect pests, resulting in many hybrids acquired from crosses between 12 wild species and O. sativa.
Gene Tagging: Rapid progress in molecular biology has made it possible for breeders, geneticists or pathologists to enhance breeding efficiency, to locate the genes more easily, or to analyze and characterize pathotypes to seek more durable resistance. Some of the genes for resistance to bacterial blight, blast and white-backed planthopper have been tagged through linkage with RFLP markers. A gene for brown plant-hopper resistance introduced from O. australiensis has also been tagged with molecular markers.
Transformations: IRRI can now look forward to the challenging tasks of gene construction and transformation - the nearest practical targets being Bt toxin gene for controlling leaffolder and yellow stem borer; of using molecular markers routinely in the breeding program; and of locating quantitative trait loci linked with characteristics such as tolerance to abiotic stresses or resistance to pests and diseases. Reliable techniques for regeneration of plants from callus and protoplasts may be an essential tool for some methods of transformation. IRRI has so far succeeded in regenerating plants from protoplasts of IR24 and four other IR varieties and lines. Further concentrated efforts are required to establish the technology system for stable regeneration of indica rice plants.
Biotechnology is a powerful tool that is spreading through IRRI. Currently there are more than ten scientists applying this tool in their work, and the signs are that more will be doing so in the future.
It is impossible to talk of biotechnology in rice without mentioning the contribution of the Rockefeller Foundation. IRRI has been a large direct beneficiary from the Foundation's programme, but IRRI has also benefited indirectly. The Foundation has also funded the work of scientists in industrialised countries and stimulated a number of scientists to begin to pay attention to rice. IRRI as the premier rice research institute in the world is uniquely placed to benefit from this interest, and has been able to draw on their contributions through such innovative devices as shuttle research.
Many NARS scientists are also doing biotechnological work, some of it supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. The quality of some of their work is advancing rapidly. To some extent IRRI is acting as an effective intermediary between the advanced institutes in the industrialised countries and the NARS. But IRRI's own work can also enhance these NARS' capabilities, because some procedures have become more economical, reliable and simplified, thanks to work done at IRRI.
This favourable interaction with the NARS will be enhanced by the proposed Asian Rice Biotechnology Network (ARBN), funding for which is now being sought. IRRI has, in addition, trained 120 scientists (degree, non-degree and group).
We are impressed by IRRI's capabilities in biotechnology, and we are excited by the prospect that its work in this area will enhance its capabilities in other traditional concerns, particularly the germplasm improvement work, that has been its mainstay, and commend its work in helping the NARS introduce these new technologies in their work.
Institution strengthening is part of IRRI's Mission. This is a task that it has to perform while changes are occurring on two fronts: NARS are maturing institutions and science is progressing fast.
Because NARS grow at uneven rates, at any one time they appear quite diverse. IRRI has responded, first of all, by offering NARS a menu of options:
· it has had scientists resident in the country to work on applied research;· it operates Country Projects, financed by special donor funds, to help create or develop research capacity;
· it offers many training courses, including a wide range of topics, such as Geographic Information Systems or biotechnology;
· its INGER network provides a most valuable service to the NARS.
These options are available for the NARS to choose, the presumption being that the NARS will choose what will benefit them in their work.
But IRRI has another motivation to interact with the NARS. IRRI scientists have often sought out NARS scientists, because their own scientific work will benefit from collaboration with NARS scientists. In recent years, the Institute has sought formal collaboration from NARS institutions in the form of consortia and networks.
Ultimately, regardless of which party initiates a relationship, it must be advantageous to both parties. Thus, the INGER network is not only of great benefit to the NARS participants, but to IRRI as well. Conversely, when a research consortium is set up, national scientists can get an opportunity to interact with and learn from IRRI scientists. Relationship between IRRI and NARS have remained warm because both parties have gained. For IRRI, maintaining and strengthening its ties with NARS are therefore extremely important. IRRI has to invest time and resources in institution strengthening.
As the relationship between IRRI and a NARS becomes more complex, it also becomes more formalized, and the two sides may jointly determine an annual collaborative work plan, arrived at after looking at the entire selection of activities on which they may collaborate. IRRI has such joint plans with a number of the countries that have stronger NARS.
Such annual work plans are useful in putting order into the short-term management of the collaboration, and is a step forward. But institution strengthening is a long-term exercise and IRRI should support the NARS' evolution. IRRI would do well to take more of a developmental view with each NARS and work out its relationship with that in mind. One thing that might be useful is to take a look periodically (say, every five years) at what a country's strengths and weaknesses are in rice research, given the state of the science at that time. Improvement plans can then be drawn up based on such an exercise. The lead must of course come from the country concerned, but the help that IRRI and perhaps ISNAR could provide would be extremely useful.
IRRI also needs to think across-the-board about what it is contributing to institution strengthening, from Research as well as International Programmes. The role of Research Programmes is essential, for research collaboration is inherently a process in which standards of quality can be steadily raised and new techniques and methodologies learned. IRRI has a particular opportunity to work with NARS scientists right up to the very frontiers of science, as is currently the case in SARP and in rice biotechnology.
Institution strengthening has an indefinite timetable. It must be continually adapted to a country's level of institutional development and, for research institutions, to the growth of scientific knowledge.
10 This section does not include discussion of the Geographic Information Systems Laboratory, which has just been made part of the Social Sciences Division, starting July 1992 (Section 6.8).
IRRI has a distinguished record in its social science work. It faced far more challenging tasks than other IARCs and has lived up to it. When IRRI came out with IR8 and succeeding varieties, it wrought a major social transformation in Asia's countryside, and opened up a flood of criticisms that the transformation worsened the welfare of the poor in Asia. In responding to the critics, the economists at IRRI made major contributions, not only on the substantive issue, but to some degree also on the methodological problem of assessing the impact of technological change. This work has continued and has been a long-term element of IRRI's social sciences work, culminating in the study on the differential impact of the new varieties among the ecosystems which came out only last year.
But follow-on work after the release of the new varieties does not end with an impact or a consequences study. The natural desire of the institute to see its biological work bear results in the farmers' field led IRRI's economists to involve themselves also in policy questions. It was clear from early on that the successful diffusion of new varieties depended on the availability of fertilizers and water. The insights into the conditions under which fertilizer subsidies would yield results came from them, and until the formation of IFPRI and IIMI, IRRI economists worked extensively irrigation policy issues.
When new varieties were being diffused, IRRI's economists, in close collaboration with agronomists and statisticians, pioneered work on constraints to understand the reasons why farmers were unwilling to adopt the full package of the new technology. This exercise laid the foundations for quantitative work on research prioritization, which is now of great practical value.
IRRI's social scientists play an equally important role which outsiders get less of a glimpse of: they collaborate closely with biological scientists to examine various technological options. In few other IARCs is the working relationship between social and biological scientists as cordial.
If we are to fault IRRI on its social science work, it is the scattered nature of its work on equity problems. Its last major scientific output on this set of problems is the differential impact study. The new head of the Social Sciences Division has indicated his interest in working on disadvantaged groups. Included in this activity would be the current work on the role of women in rice fanning which is fully discussed elsewhere (see Section 6.6).
To deal with the problems of disadvantaged groups engaged in rice production, it is necessary to concentrate on the role of labour. Despite the fact that rice is the most labour-intensive of the food crops, IRRI has done relatively little work in this area. Only two divisions in IRRI deal with it, Social Sciences and Agricultural Engineering. Without a clear understanding of the role of mechanical power (from men, women, animals and machines) in rice production, how the various sources of power substitute for one another at the technical level and at the social level, and who controls the introduction of new technology (and how), it would be difficult to link the work done on specific equity issues to the rest of IRRI's work. Without such a link, it is impossible even to attempt a prediction of the impact of new technology on the demand for various types of labour, the key determinant of the outcomes for the disadvantaged groups. An important by-product of this exercise could be a closer integration of the work of the Agricultural Engineering Division into the mainstream of IRRI's work.
Another important question often raised with respect to the IRRI's Social Science work is how much role it should have in policy analysis. IRRI is best served when the policy work requires close interaction with the biological-science community in IRRI. Examples are the sustainability issue, which has many policy dimensions (e.g., pesticide policies, upland land-use policies) or intellectual property protection (see Section 6.7). Such issues are central to IRRI's scientific work, and clearly require it to engage in policy analysis.
At the more macro-level, questions can be and have legitimately been raised whether IRRI has the required comparative advantage, particularly in view of the presence within the CGIAR of IFPRI. It is fair to point out that where IRRI's policy work brings it somewhat beyond its technological specialization, it has always sought and, in most cases, obtained IFPRI's cooperation. Where IRRI's agenda differs from IFPRI's, however there may be good reason for IRRI to proceed. Such issues should be examined on a case-by-case basis and it would be unwise to make any blanket recommendation.
IRRI has been a pioneer among the CGIAR centres in conducting research on gender issues. It embarked on the project Women in Rice Farming Systems (WIRFS) in 1987, as recommended by a Bellagio Conference on Women and Agricultural Technology and the Third External Programme Review. WIRFS is administratively part of the Asian Rice Farming Systems Network, and its research leaders, consisting of 0.4 IRS and one full-time NRS, were drawn from the Social Sciences Division until 1990. Since then only one full-time NRS from the Division has been assigned to this task. A visiting scientist has just joined the Division for half of her time.
The research objectives of the WIRFS project were to (a) document and list the set of activities and decision-making done by both mean and women, (b) identify the constraints faced by women and (c) design develop and test technology suited to the needs of women. In doing these, it was expected that methodologies would be developed to identify viable technology suitable for rural women.
At the time it was set up, much of this work was new to international and national agricultural research institutes, and IRRI is to be credited with having opened up this area of research. In the five years since it was set up, WIRFS has lived up to its stated objectives, and a peer review conducted by IRRI has reported favourably on its performance. It has identified quite a few technologies beneficial to women, mostly produced by the Agricultural Engineering Division and mainly concerned with post-harvest activities. The research activities have also identified specific training needs for women. It has set up an active research network of some calibre in many of the participating countries, mostly drawn from universities, but including a few from the government research systems. It has created some awareness among IRRI researchers of the important role played by women in rice-farming, and gender analysis is being included in site characterisation work in many network and consortium sites.
Notwithstanding the pioneering role played by IRRI and these successes, a few hard questions have to be raised with respect to this effort. WIRFS has provided a great deal of information, but it has been information without much in the way of theory. The peer review also criticized IRRI for being concerned only with women's issues, rather than with gender issues generally.
While it has succeeded in identifying various activities in the rural area to be in the women's or the men's 'domain', it has stopped short of asking why the sexual division of labour is as it is. Given the fluidity with which men's and women's domains may change, particularly when a new technology is introduced, it may be quite unwise, even dangerous, to recommend a change based on a static listing of current 'domains'.
IRRI therefore faces a difficult choice. If research on gender issues is to be more than mere tokenism, restricting resources to the present level of activity is not justified. If on the other hand more resources are to be committed to research (and we are pleased to see the appointment of the visiting scientist to work on this issue), then the questions to be addressed have to be different from the ones that have been thus far tackled, and requiring more sophisticated social science inputs.
We suggest that WIRFS should become more of the central research activities of the Social Sciences Division than it is at present. In particular, if it is the intent of the Division to work extensively on disadvantaged groups in rice-farming, then the role of women can be analysed most usefully in the context of an overall framework, at once rigorous and comprehensive, that looks into how work is assigned to different groups in a rice-farming community. Ideally, this task should be part of a major effort (see Section 6.5) that examines the role of mechanical power (supplied by both humans and machines) in agriculture. This would simultaneously help IRRI fulfil its stated goal of conducting research and developing technologies that will help the disadvantaged, among whom women are but one group. The WIRFS network would then be part of this research activity, which would also define its size and scope. In particular, the scope of the network's activities would be narrowed down to research, and its object of concern broadened to include disadvantaged groups other than women.
As designed, the WIRFS project was also to make gender issues an integral part of research activities in IRRI, so that they are entered into consideration from the start of the project. The peer review was satisfied that the WIRFS has succeeded to some extent in doing so. The Panel's view tended in the opposite direction. The inclusion of gender issues, as practised in IRRI at present, cannot lead to a prior assessment of the impact of technologies on men and women, because IRRI has not done much work on the use of labour in rice farming. Of the few cases where the WIRFS project has had an impact on IRRI's scientific work, the main one is the Engineering Division, which is directly concerned with machines/labour substitution.
We emphasize some of the problems with the WIRFS project in order to highlight the need for a clearer research focus, which we have discussed at length in Section 6.5.- We do not wish to detract from many of the achievements of the WIRFS project, and are certainly not recommending any reduction in its volume of work.
Intellectual property issues arise with IRRI's work in three areas: agricultural engineering, germplasm transfer and transfer of biotechnological know-how and materials.
Agricultural Engineering: The Agricultural Engineering Division has been a prolific designer of small agricultural machinery and implements. IRRI has taken out patents on its designs, and currently holds 39 such patents, the largest among CGIAR Centres. These patents are meant to be preemptive, to prevent the use of the designs for monopolistic gains.
IRRI has a policy of making its designs available to all who wish to produce them, without any licensing, and cooperates closely with firms (mostly very small) wishing to use its designs. As IRRI does not license the designs, it is not responsible for quality control, and the machines are not sold with IRRI imprint on them.
We are satisfied that the approach taken by IRRI on this issue is sensible, and commend particularly IRRI's services to the small machinery producers.
Germplasm: As the holder of the world's largest rice germplasm collection, IRRI's policy, reiterated many times, is to make germplasm and breeding lines available to all at no cost. This is in line with the CGIAR's Policy on Plant Genetic Resources issued in 1989, which states:
"It is the policy of the CGIAR that Centres should supply from active collections the germplasm requested by any bona fide research worker anywhere in the world... The CGIAR encourages all countries to support the unrestricted interchange of germplasm throughout the world".
Since February 1991, IRRI has required private companies to sign a Rice Germplasm Transfer Agreement, which requires them to attest to the following (and we quote the full text):
"We hereby agree that should our company's breeding activities using this germplasm result in the release of any licensed commercial variety, the company will give credit to IRRI as the source of seeds of the breeding lines and disclose the country of origin of the breeding materials used. The company will also commit itself to sharing any derived variety with IRRI and other organizations for rice breeding purposes without cost".
We are not in a position to judge whether or not such an agreement will hold up legally, but would merely observe that it does not preclude a private business from acquiring intellectual property protection on plant material derived in part from germplasm.
Materials and Know-how Used in Biotechnological Work: We are accustomed to thinking of IRRI as a producer of new technology. With increasing use of biotechnology in its research, IRRI has also become a recipient of technology - to be more precise, a buyer of technology.11 Most transactions are one-time arm's-length transactions, and give rise to few problems, but there are some in which IRRI is implicitly taking positions on some of the thornier questions surrounding the intellectual property rights issue.
11 Its software purchase policy is discussed in Chapter 8.
One instance illustrates very well the kind of dilemma that IRRI faces. In its work on the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), IRRI found that it would do better to obtain technical know-how from a Belgian company. In the resulting transaction, IRRI agreed to provide the company with Bt isolates from Asia. Further, IRRI will not release any strains or information emanating from the agreement to specific industrialised countries.
Pragmatically speaking, IRRI acted properly in entering into this particular transaction. If it had not, it might have denied real benefits to rice farmers in developing countries. But it merely reemphasizes the point we raise when discussing germplasm transfer, that the issue of intellectual property rights (in an imperfect world) is quite complicated, and requires a broad understanding.
We are in a rapidly moving world, both technologically and legally, over which IRRI will have little control or even power to influence. Both IRRI and the NARS in the region are having trouble keeping up with the pace of change. IRRI should become a leader, not in advocating a particular position on legal changes that may be taking place in the legislatures or the courtrooms of the world, but in exploring the implications of those changes to its own work, that of the NARS, and to the welfare of the farmer in the region. Because of its understanding of the new technology, IRRI is in a good position to assess these. Unfortunately, IRRI cannot afford the capability to track the rapid legal changes that are taking place in many countries. The Panel hopes that IBPGR, the logical place where the legal expertise would be, will acquire it.
Currently IRRI collects large volumes of primary data and makes extensive use of secondary information as well. IRRI has not been immune to the common complaint against many scientific institutions that it collects data well in excess of what it is capable of using, and much of it would lie unused in various forms in different locations. Without clear access and retrieval procedures, these data may as well not exist.
As IRRI's hardware is being developed and connected (see Section 8.7), researchers now have a chance to make more efficient use of the data that are now scattered in various parts of the institute. A task force was set up in 1991 "to develop a comprehensive program for a coordinated system to store, verify, monitor and update information on all aspects of rice". Despite the ambitious nature of the task, it appears that IRRI is well on the way to achieving it. The system is based on relational database software. The data collection and updating will be decentralized at locations where people are in any case engaged in these tasks already. The main difference is that the fruits of their labour will now be readily accessible to other IRRI staff, subject of course to a researcher's right to priority of use.
A priority listing has also been made for conversion of the existing data into a common standard, with the rice statistics, the germplasm related databases and the GIS-related rice ecosystems placed at the top of the list.
IRRI is moving in the right direction, but we would put in a word of caution. If IRRI successfully implements its plans, IRRI may move from the current situation where data collection (and collation of secondary data) ran in excess of any likelihood of their retrieval and analysis, to a reverse situation where the database system will be constrained by the effort needed to collect and to update data for it to reach its full potential.
IRRI is now committed to using the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a major research tool. Its GIS Laboratory started operations last year, but it has been working on GIS-based system for some time in its characterisation work. That was scattered. IRRI is nevertheless among the first CGIAR Centres to get fully involved in this new area as GIS is particularly relevant to the ecosystem framework. IRRI's GIS work is currently proceeding at all levels from a macro (ecoregional) level all the way down to the village level. In terms of software and linkages, the CGIAR is particularly fortunate in receiving the donation of the main software for all the Centres from a major GIS-software producer (Arcinfo). GIS technology is now being developed at all CGIAR Centres, and discussions are under way to cooperate in the collection, processing and sharing of data.
In both the general database and the GIS, IRRI is finding new tools to make its scientific work more efficient. IRRI is in a position to assist national systems on the acquisition and use of these tools, so that they may develop information systems appropriate to their needs, and which will also allow them to have access to IRRI's own developing database. A by-product for the scientific community would be the emergence of a common standard for the various kinds of data that would be developed, which would simplify the task of analysis considerably.
This chapter has examined some of the areas where changes are taking place quite fast. IRRI has changed with the times. In many areas, it has been working on the substance of the problem well before the world finds a name for it: sustainability is one such area. In other areas, IRRI has responded with speed to suggestions from the outside that it reorients its thinking on some issues. Two examples would be the introduction of gender issues into IRRI, and its initiative on global climate change.
IRRI has been well served by its scientists. Where progress in the relevant disciplines or techniques (biotechnology and database management) requires them to reorient the way they go about their work, they have moved quickly. Its social scientists have worked closely with their colleagues in the biological sciences and in the Engineering Division, and have the process contributed to their own disciplines as well. They have also been active, at a more macro-level, in policy analysis which is necessary because rice is so important in Asia. They need however to resume a more active role on equity issues.
While IRRI is sensitive to the diversity of the NARS, and collaborates with them in different ways to fit the different stages of their development, IRRI could perhaps do more to assist long-term planning and growth processes of the NARS. Collaboration with ISNAR might be productive.
The area where IRRI has found it most difficult to stay abreast of developments is that of intellectual property protection. We understand IRRI's difficulties in coming to terms with this fast-changing problem, which in one area, namely the law, takes it beyond its normal fields of expertise. Nevertheless, this is an area in which it can provide information and insights to its colleagues in the NARS.
