New approaches are required that harness the skills of public and private sector research capacity on a global basis, to contribute to the common purpose. Centre involvement could be seen as providing hubs for a networking approach in which each commodity Centre continues its role in germplasm enhancement, expands its role as the repository of information on its mandated crops and assists in the transfer of biotechnology to its partners in the developing world.
Taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the multitude of organizations and institutions involved in biotechnological research, the Panel considers it unrealistic to suppose that the Centres could undertake, by themselves, the desired research on the scale required to meet the future needs of their work. The cost of developing adequate in-house capacity would be prohibitive and would inevitably detract from other vital activities. These considerations apply whether the required facilities were to be developed at each Centre, or at one or more Centres as shared facilities.
Given some of the projected changes in research approaches, the Panel considers that there will remain a major long-term role for the Centres to apply state-of-the-art research, knowledge and technology relating to problems in germplasm improvement. In the Panel's view, the CGIAR should regard the Centres as major foci for molecular biological information pertaining to the key crops, pests, pathogens, livestock and fish that are important for the poor.
To fulfill such a role, the Centres would need to be major players at the leading international tables concerned with policies on the acquisition and utilization of information on molecular genetics for the analysis, conservation and enhancement of germplasm. They would also need to develop capabilities in bioinformatics to gather, use and disseminate the information acquired in these areas.
The primary information on commercial crop genomes is being generated in public and private sector laboratories on a global basis. Much of it is directly or indirectly useful to the Centres. The CGIAR needs to negotiate the means, and establish the mechanisms, to have direct access to present and future information. Additional mechanisms will be required to acquire information on the orphan crops within the CGIAR mission. Many laboratories and especially the large multinational companies are well provided with both human and technical resources to generate molecular characterizations of complex genomes. The CGIAR should use these resources and seek to take advantage of such facilities to further its own mission.
However, the Centres are likely to remain the appropriate places to assay and improve germplasm for the properties required to serve their clients and to assist in identifying the genes associated with particular traits. They should therefore build partnerships and networks with key laboratories and databases to ensure that relevant new knowledge is generated and applied.
Similar considerations apply to the use of molecular genetics in Centre programmes in areas of research other than germplasm improvement, such as applications to research on agro-ecosystems. Full integration of relevant molecular genetics into each programme or project would continue to be essential. Molecular genetics should be seen as a tool for facilitating problem-solving research, rather than as a force affecting its direction.
3.2.1. The Basic Framework
3.2.2. Global Collaboration
3.2.3. International Networks for Biotechnological Research
3.2.4. Centre Roles and Capacities
3.2.5. Administrative Implications for the CGIAR
For the CGIAR to remain abreast of developments in biotechnology and to take full advantage of them to further its mission, new structures and administrative arrangements will be needed. It will also remain essential to take into account concerns about the potential risks associated with the entry of transgenic crops into agriculture and food chains. Consequently, there is an urgent need to work towards universally acceptable biosafety and gene deployment protocols and to promote the research needed to refine and implement them.
The Panel recommends that the CGIAR establishes a policy framework on biosafety and gene deployment such that mechanisms are always in place to ensure that the benefits and risks associated with the release of transgenic organisms are assessed and that the regional and national regulations and priorities are fully observed.
Regarding new approaches, the Panel has not attempted to be prescriptive, but has discussed the principles involved. The Panel recommends that the CGIAR should develop a new strategy that would include three different, but interrelated, types of activity. One would be designed to position the CGIAR alongside others committed to a greater understanding of germplasm. Another would foster the evolution of international networks for biotechnological research on problems directly associated with the CGIAR mission, while a third would be internal and designed to ensure that Centres have the capacity to apply the increasing pool of knowledge to meet the needs of their client countries. Although these three types of activity would be separate in conception, there would be close links between them.
The rapidly advancing fields of genomics and bioinformatics, while becoming extremely competitive areas for the private sector, also present new opportunities for the CGIAR System. The Panel considers it vital that the mission of the CGIAR, the work of its Centres and the needs of the developing countries are more widely recognized at all levels in the relevant scientific structures. These already include initiatives such as the Human Genome Project, the International Arabidopsis Genome Programme, the International Rice Genome Programme and the National Genome Initiative of the USA (see Annex V).
The Panel therefore recommends that the CGIAR should be instrumental in bringing about a "Genome Summit" involving representatives of multinational companies, major funding agencies, charitable institutions and other organizations, at the highest level. The forum created would establish the broad goals and standards required for greater understanding of the genomes of the principal organisms on which the planet depends and thus strengthen the role of the CGIAR in making such information more readily available to the developing countries.
In the first instance, such a forum need not be distracted by issues of intellectual property, since these are fast changing issues that can be resolved through specific negotiations. The aims of the "genome summit" would be to:
· bring together existing genome initiatives into a common perspective;· define the global needs, goals and standards;
· define policies that will stimulate collaboration at all levels within the relevant scientific communities; and
· ensure that the CGIAR's mission and activities are recognized as of crucial importance in the field of genomics.
The Panel sees such a summit as a means of pulling potentially large amounts of additional resources and information, relevant to the CGIAR, into the genomics arena, thus advancing the CGIAR mission and benefiting the other collaborators. Ideally, much of the information stemming from such a global effort would be seen as international public goods from which all countries, all institutions and all people could eventually benefit. To get such a programme off the ground would require vision and universal goodwill. The Panel considers that the CGIAR could have an important role in meeting this challenge.
The Panel also recommends an expanded networking approach to biotechnological research for development in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Such an initiative would require, as a minimum, a new fund, a broadly based steering committee and a secretariat. The basic philosophy would be to harness and augment the resources already being applied to biotechnology in these areas through collaborative and networking approaches. Expert groups would be established to award grants and fellowships on a competitive basis and reinforce the Centres' own activities in building networks.
Some of its activities might well build on the experience already gained from initiatives such as the International Rice Biotechnology Programme sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation (see Annex V). Although networks of this type need to be backed by a fund to provide seed money, the value of the collaborative work far exceeds the cost of the central input. Participation in this type of network creates a group of scientists who develop a feeling of common ownership that leads them to contribute in ways that far exceed their formal commitment. The networking approach also has an important training function and can incorporate numerous ways of drawing on existing skills and facilities.
The association of the Centres with all such activities would be similar to the association of IRRI, CIAT and WARDA with the Rockefeller Foundation's programme. The Centres would contribute to the work of the networks and draw on their products. They would also be competitors for grants alongside other applicants and would help to identify candidates from national programmes for fellowships, sabbatical leave and other similar arrangements.
If this idea finds favour, detailed thought would have to be given to whether or not it would be feasible to promote and assist the multiplicity of different networks implied through one administrative agency. The central steering committee and secretariat would have the tasks of helping to find donors for a central fund for the award of grants and fellowships, as well as for the support of individual projects. The Panel's view is that to establish a semi-independent central mechanism for these functions would be preferable to imposing these tasks on Centre staff.
The Panel recommends that each Centre should review its in-house expertise in relation to the proposed new strategy.
Centres involved in germplasm improvement will require sufficient expertise to monitor progress within the relevant global genomics community, participate in the overall effort and make decisions on how information and resources on molecular genetics should be used. Internal skills in bioinformatics (see Annex III) will become increasingly important for the effective use of genomic data generated within the informal global networking system. Existing networks in genomics consist of scientists and institutions, both public and private, with common interests in acquiring and interpreting information. They are typically supported by bioinformatics through the WWW and databases, and are funded from a variety of sources. These networks and their constituent scientists and institutions will be the engines of discovery for the CGIAR needs in genomics. Guiding their outputs towards the needs of the poor will be an important role for the Centres.
In addition to reviewing its skills in genomics and bioinformatics, each Centre would also need to review its capacity for assessing, more widely, the potential contributions of biotechnology to its research projects and to re-consider its strategies for exploiting new discoveries. Such strategies should give appropriate weight to in-house contributions as well as to external, collaborative and contractual approaches.
For example, a Centre could contract an industrial company to map the molecular diversity within 20,000 accessions of its germplasm collection using 1,000 markers, or perform the molecular diagnostics work in its marker-assisted breeding programmes using state-of-the-art efficiencies present nowhere else in the world. Leading scientists at advanced research institutes could be given "joint appointments" or be formally affiliated to the Centres to help ensure a long-term commitment. Exchange of resources and personnel could be formalized
Where proprietary rights are involved and the material or technique is not freely available for use in developing countries, the Centres should consider promoting research to circumvent such restrictions. However, there will also be many aspects of biotechnology of importance to the CGIAR mission that will remain of little interest to profit-making organizations in the short and medium terms. It is these aspects, in particular, that could be developed as international public goods.
Senior staff skills in business management and related matters might well need strengthening and similar skills would be desirable at board level. Centres would also need to review their advisory and training roles in biotechnology and related matters and build their capacities accordingly.
The Centres should also be prepared to undertake research to examine the potential risks in cases where there would be significant benefits in releasing transgenic organisms. The Panel considers that procedures for evaluating the potential role of transgenics, and for assessing the associated benefits and risks, should be conducted within the agreed CGIAR policy framework (see Section 3.1), on a case-by-case basis. Such procedures should take into account the findings of relevant research, including that at the farmer level, and should recognize the concerns of the client countries.
The Panel recommends that each Centre should have an independent committee exercising a "duty of care" to make sure that, for each product, benefits and risks are assessed, clients consulted and regulatory procedures strictly adhered to.
The scope for greater inter-Centre collaboration in the use and exchange of biotechnological experience and information was mentioned in several of the returns to the Panel's questionnaire. Various suggestions were made for networking and other collaborative activities. The Panel strongly endorses the principles described and considers that the possibilities should be explored further, perhaps through an inter-Centre meeting on biotechnology. (The Panel understands that the last such meeting was held in 1989.)
Within the CGIAR administrative structure, the Panel sees TAC as encompassing biotechnology in its routine consideration of Centre programmes. Hence, it will need to draw on appropriate expertise from within or outside its regular membership. In the Panel's view, however, biotechnology should not be treated separately for purposes of planning, funding or assessment, either by the Centres or by TAC, but should be fully integrated into the broader programmes to which it relates.
To assist the Centres to expand their work in biotechnology, the Panel recommends the creation of a central CGIAR Biotechnology Service Unit capable of giving professional advice to the Centres on the proprietary, biosafety and gene deployment considerations of their project proposals. It could also help the Centres in their negotiations with potential collaborators.
The Panel sees this Central Service Unit as commenting on all proposed Centre projects that involve aspects of biotechnology. The existence of such a unit would automatically help in sharing experience and information among the Centres and the countries they serve. In the context of the more general dissemination of information on policies and practices, the Panel sees scope for creating a Web site for information on bioethics, biosafety and gene deployment. An appropriate organization might be commissioned to run such a site.
