[For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and
Agriculture see Forum website.
Note, participants are
assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they
state otherwise.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 10:35
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 72: Markers - Characterisation - Biopiracy
This is from Vladimir Magalhães. I'm a biologist and lawyer, graduated at University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil. I'm a coordinator of a postgraduate environmental law course. My PhD thesis at USP was about "Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Biodiversity", where I discussed that patents on DNA natural sequences and other natural biological molecules, even when they are isolated from the animal or human tissues, are discoveries and not inventions, because there is not human creative activity in the natural chemical biological structures which are described, like DNA, and patented in the United States and the European Union (EU).
Section 2 of the Background Document says that characterisation, using example molecular markers, can be important for promotion and control of bioprospecting. [The relevant part of Section 2 reads "Characterisation of genetic resources goes hand in hand with their conservation as it is fundamental both for understanding what is being conserved and for choosing the genetic resources that should be conserved. Characterisation enables us to identify the key features (both the strengths and weaknesses) of the available genetic resources, and this knowledge can also be used to develop breeding programmes for sustainable use of the genetic resource to harness and/or disseminate the positive attributes identified in the population. Characterisation can also play an important role regarding issues of access to, and benefit sharing from, agricultural genetic resources, as well the promotion and control of "bioprospecting" (i.e. biodiversity prospecting, the search for commercially valuable compounds, substances or genetic material in nature). If a country has characterised its genetic resources, it should be appropriately positioned to develop and implement conservation strategies for targeted species, and to promote and oversee any potential commercial or other enterprises arising from the knowledge generated; to protect the resources (or any of their products) from inappropriate bioprospecting, including that carried out by foreign companies or countries; and to negotiate appropriate compensation for use of these resources by third parties, be they national or foreign"...Moderator].
It's virtually impossible to characterize every natural biological molecule with real or potential commercial value in the Brazilian biodiversity, for instance, because our biodiversity is very huge and we even don't know all the plant, animal and microrganism species we have in our ecosystems. And we do not have money to do it well. The ecosystems are being destroyed for an agricultural model using monocultures for exportation to the first world countries (as 200 years ago).
Sure, it is very important do these characterization. But it is more important to discuss what is behind the international agenda. It's clear the movement of developed countries (USA and EU) to monopolize the biological resources of developing countries through the patent law for using them in their biotechnology industries.
The question is to criminalize in the developed countries biopiracy in other countries using an international agreement to define a international crime of biopiracy against the sovereignty of the countries over their biological resources as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. I doubt whether USA and EU countries would accept to sign a agreement like this but the countries with megadiversity would forbid enterprises from these countries to access their biodiversity if they do not sign the agreement.
In this moment, the role of biotechnology would be very important as a way to probe that a biological material described in a patent had an origin in the biopiracy done in a determinate country, in the case of endemic species material, or in some countries, when these biological materials exist in more than one country. It is related to agricultural activities because many of the biological materials subject to biopiracy are utilized for agricultural biotechnology.
The FAO would be a forum to begin to discuss the importance of criminalization of biopiracy as an international crime like drugs trade and terrorism. The use of biotechnology to conserve the biodiversity cannot be considered as a solution but only a palliative when the biodiversity in the developing countries is being destroyed by an economic model built by developed countries, through the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for instance, based on the economic exploitation of developing countries and their natural resources. As always, since the Spanish began to plunder the Incas and Mayas nations. In these models, the developing countries are supposed to have a monoculture agriculture for export with low economic value, to have industries activities that are highly polluting, and sending the semi-manufactured products to the developed countries to do the less polluting activities which export the final products with higher aggregated economic value to the developing countries (I'm simplifing to show the big picture of this questions). In this way, the commercial balance will always favour the developed countries while the developing countries will never have economic resources to develop their technologies, including biotechnology, what is not in the developed countries interest, because their higher developed technology makes the difference in the international commerce.
Vladimir Magalhães
São Paulo University,
São Paulo,
Brazil.
vlad (at) usp.br
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 10:39
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 73: Diversity and conservation
It is again D. Vijay from India.
The conservation of genetic diversity has a lot of economic value. Even though it is not having direct impact, it is the basic source for the further development of the existing species as through conservation itself we can store the existing diversity from extinction. All means of possible techniques should be adapted both for assessment and preservation of existing diversity i.e. either through seed banks, sperm banks, DNA banks, cryopreservation etc. Already there was lot of damage to the natural diversity and now it is high time not only to preserve but to use the conserved diversity. Both conservation and usage should go hand in hand. Certainly molecular markers will help in this aspect, even though they have their own lacuna. The usage of new technologies like DNA bar-coding (Message 23, June 8, from P.K. Gupta) have to be given importance along with time tested techniques like molecular markers.
The modern techniques are certainly resource drenching and it is difficult for the developing countries to work on them. But with the advancement of technology we have to move along with it. Developing countries cannot stay aside from the mainstream knowledge as most of the diversity and its end users belong to them. The international organisations like CGIAR institutes and UN institutes are lending their helping hand in this extent, let them try to hold it and move along.
It's the right time to move together and for framing international guidelines for the use of these technologies. I wish this conference may provide an outcome in this direction e.g. some concrete steps like zeroing a suitable marker and steps towards establishing the universal data bases etc.
Vijay D., PhD
Scientific Assistant
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
IPGRI Office for South Asia
NASC complex, Pusa Campus
New Delhi - 110 012,
India
Mobile: 09868412855
E-mail: vijaydunna (at) gmail.com
URL: http://www.geocities.com/vijaydunna
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 10:44
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 74: Capacity building // Decentralised banks
I am Dr P S Janaki Krishna, working as a ‘consultant’ in the Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme being implemented at the Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India.
I always enjoy the FAO e-mail conferences wherein participants come up with rational views. I have been following the excellent messages placed during the first half of the conference. The issue of characterization and conservation of species are, although very important in the context of developing countries, rarely considered as priority problems. More often than not, enhancing crop/animal productivity is considered as a felt need and the necessity of conservation of some of the species is given a priority only when particular species became endangered. (Note: Identification and deposition of large diverse genetic base is equally a priority issue for breeding better varieties). This is one of the reasons why agricultural biodiversity is declining and many of the landraces are being lost in developing countries. We become alert to the situation only when our kitty is going to be emptied. It’s fortunate that FAO has come up with this conference and thrown some light on it.
Biotechnological tools like ‘molecular markers’ and ‘in vitro conservation’ can play a great role in characterisation and conservation of genetic resources. However, capacity building and availability of financial resources are major stumbling blocks in harnessing the potential of these expensive tools. Firstly, it is high time that massive capacity building programmes in these areas are conceived at national and international level. Secondly, establishment of decentralized DNA/germplasm/seed banks are more economical and feasible rather than establishing one/two centres at global level. The international and national agencies should give priority to setting up local genetic resources units at district/state level. However, complying with the intellectual property rights on such materials is yet another important issue to be considered in the new patent regime.
P S Janaki Krishna,
Consultant,
Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
Hyderabad - 500 007,
India
Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 11:20
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 75: Re: Molecular markers - Populations the same? - Inbreeding
My name is Menchie Ablan and I am with the WorldFish Center based in Penang, Malaysia. I've used molecular markers of marine fish, mainly to see where it can help with fisheries questions on stock structure, restocking programs, marine protected area design and connectivity. I am slowly diversifying into cultured fish, but not yet. We've had cases where molecular genetics provides answers, others where it simply validates observation of the phenotype, local knowledge, value judgements, or even gut feel. And yes, sometimes its usefulness can be forced.
Population genetic models define how genes have to be organized if there was one single population. By testing our observed gene frequencies (based on molecular markers) of populations aginst the Null Hypothesis of unity, we determine if populations are significantly different from one another. This analysis compares population parameters. The terms "same" or "different" here do not refer to phenotypic traits. Because of that, such molecular marker analyses are not as meaningful for cultured (farmed) populations as for wild populations. For cultured populations, an individual from the "same" population as one that grows fast should also grow fast. For wild populations, though, "same" and "different" refer to the way in which individuals of the population interact with the environment and continue to do so. It defines the spatial dimension of stocks. For restocking programs, it provides guidance for where the broodstock should come from.
More recent analysis methods, however, allow assignment of individuals to populations. That is different from comparing populations. With these analyses, we look at an individual's genotype and compute a probability that it is generated by the allele frequencies of population A, B or C using maximum-likelihood or a Bayesian approach. The analysis provides a different perspective because it says individual 1 is most likely to come from population A with an associated probability as opposed to population B with an associated probability. A cut off for the probability value can be set (e.g. 0.9 or 0.8) to say the population assignment is statistically supported. Maybe you were looking for something like this, Dr Toro ? [Message 71, June 22..Moderator] We've started using this analysis with wild stocks as an alternative way to determine population structure and assess migration. I have no idea how well it will work for cultured species with a long histories of domestication. Some useful references are given below.
Ma. Carmen A. Ablan (Menchie)
Head, Molecular Genetics Laboratory
WorldFish Center Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung
Bayan Lepas, Penang 11900
Malaysia
m.ablan (at) cgiar.org
Pritchard JK, Stephens M and Donelly P. 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 155. pp 945-959 [Available at http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/155/2/945 ...Moderator].
Piry S, Alapetite A, Cornuet JM, Paetkau D, Baudouin A and Estoup A. 2004. Geneclass2: a software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. Journal of Heredity, 95(6):536-539
Manel1 S, Gaggiotti OE, Waples RS. 2005. Assignment methods: matching biological questions with appropriate techniques. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(3):136-142
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 16:48
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 76: Re: DNA banks - forest genetic resources
This is Kioumars Ghamkhar from Australia, again.
E.M. Muralidharan (message 67, June 21) has mentioned that there is no priority for conservation of the genetic resources of the wild species of the forests (trees). I agree with him that there is not enough effort and funding for the conservation of forest genetic resources. I think that DNA banks can play a very important role in conserving the genes in a condition that genetic erosion is happening so fast and the lack of sufficient funding does not let us conserve these precious sources of diversity. When we are not able to conserve the trees where they are (I wish we could, as an evolutionist), there is no other option than ex situ conservation and it can work either by seed banks, storing tissues, or DNA banks. Doing any of these is better than nothing.
Dr Kioumars Ghamkhar
Research Associate
Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA)
University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley WA 6009
Australia
Voice: 61 8 6488 7120
Fax: 61 8 6488 1140
E-mail: kioumars (at) cyllene.uwa.edu.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 16:53
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 77: Simpler techniques for molecular characterization of forest trees
This is Alice Muchugi from Kenya, again.
A few points I am still pondering on - still on molecular characterization of forest trees and their conservation:
In my previous message (nr. 68, June 21), I mentioned the use of random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis (RAPD) and other simpler techniques, such as isozymes, in molecular characterization of tropical tree species. Apart from equipment costs, RAPD offers a fast method of assaying large sample sizes of previously unstudied taxa. Despite several authors giving comparable results of RAPDs and other techniques and recommending their use (among them Kjolner et al, 2004, Molecular Ecology, 13, 81-86; Garcia et al, 2004, Genetics and Molecular Biology, 27, 579-588), I am saddened that renowned molecular genetics journals refuse to publish work studied using RAPDs even as preliminary results. The volumes of work done and published in the 1990s attest to the reliability of RAPD analysis (Hadrys et al, 1992, Molecular Ecology, 1, 55-63). This is placing scientists in the developing world with simple labs in a tricky position; we would love to employ the modern state of art sequencers but financial limitations will not allow it. What is the way out then considering the need to study these taxa before we lose them on the earth's surface? I see a position where, by the time we acquire the current technology in the developed world laboratories, again they will have written off what we have taken so long to acquire!
Secondly, I am also wondering what would be the best way of properly conserving the characterized forest tree germplasm apart from 'protected reserves'. I know bringing forest on farms is being greatly advocated but this is only for species with promising uses that are already known. What of the unknown ones and those with less valued uses? Have botanical gardens worked well in developed countries? If so, can we create regional ones within the tropics then with combined resources from several countries? For most crops which are mainly annuals, collected germplasm can be multiplied with ease. Forest trees have longer lifespans and will therefore take long to mature. This is a drawback too as the developing countries may not have the back up for the research continuity. Just thinking out loud about how we can utilize biotechnology to save our forest genetic resources.
Alice Muchugi
PhD Research Fellow
Genetic Resource Unit,
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
PO Box 30677-00100
Nairobi,
Kenya
tel: +254-20-7224000 Ext 4273
fax: +254-20-7224001
email: a.muchugi (at) cgiar.org
http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org
[The articles referred to here are
1) Kjølner, S., Såstad, S. M., Taberlet, P. and Brochmann, C. (2004). Amplified fragment length polymorphism versus random amplified polymorphic DNA markers: clonal diversity in Saxifraga cernua. Molecular Ecology 13 (1), 81-86. The anstract ends: "We conclude that although AFLP analysis is superior in terms of efficiency, RAPDs may still be used as reliable markers in small low-tech laboratories".
2) Antonio A.F. Garcia1, Luciana L. Benchimo, Antônia M.M. Barbosa1, Isaias O. Geraldi, Cláudio L.Souza Jr. and Anete P. de Souza. 2004. Comparison of RAPD, RFLP, AFLP and SSR markers for diversity studies in tropical maize inbred lines. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 27, 4, 579-588 http://www.scielo.br/pdf/gmb/v27n4/22428.pdf
3) Hadrys, H., M. Blaick, and B. Schierwater. 1992. Applications of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in molecular ecology. Molecular Ecology 1:55-63...Moderator].
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 23 June 2005 17:19
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 78: Re: Capacity building // Decentralised banks
This is Kioumars Ghamkhar, again.
In agreement with Janaki Krishna (message 74, June 23), I believe that state and national genetic resource centres (GRCs) must be established but there must be a regional director for each region comprising up to 10 countries to coordinate these centres and assure the end users that there is enough interaction among these centres. These coordinating centres must be funded by international organisations such as FAO and IPGRI/GCP. Training and capacity building can be achieved by making connections between the researchers from developing countries who are working and living in the developed world and who are interested to serve their original countries and/or cooperate with the researchers in their original countries. The researchers in these local/national GRCs can then be trained either in the homeland or in the regional offices on the characterisation (either conventional or molecular) and the data will be saved in the national centres with a backup in the regional centres or the mother organisations (i.e IPGRI or FAO).
Dr Kioumars Ghamkhar
Research Associate
Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA)
University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley WA 6009
Australia
Voice: 61 8 6488 7120
Fax: 61 8 6488 1140
E-mail: kioumars (at) cyllene.uwa.edu.au
[Just to give a bit more background to some of the acronyms mentioned above and that have been used frequently throughout this conference:
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is an inter-governmental organization representing 187 member countries plus the European Union (http://www.fao.org/UNFAO/about/index_en.html).
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is one of the 15 research centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/index.htm).
The CGIAR is an informal association of 63 members that supports agricultural research and related activities of an international public goods nature carried out by 15 autonomous research centres. The CGIAR partnership includes 24 developing and 22 industrialised countries, 4 private foundations and 13 regional and international organisations that provide financing, technical support and strategic direction. FAO, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank serve as cosponsors of the CGIAR (http://www.cgiar.org).
In 2003, the CGIAR approved for implementation 3 pilot Challenge Programmes (defined as a "time-bound, independently-governed program of high impact research, that targets the CGIAR goals in relation to complex issues of overwhelming global and/or regional significance, and requires partnerships between a wide range of institutions in order to deliver its products"). One of them, the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP), aims to "harness the rich global heritage of plant genetic resources and create a new generation of crops that meet the needs of resource-poor people" (http://www.generationcp.org/index.php) ...Moderator].