In response to Dr Ghosh's question [12 June], there is one very basic difference between many forest trees and certain agricultural crops, namely the scope for operational use of vegetative propagation. This has various implications, of which the two-fold attraction of using some form of 'terminator technology' is but one. Many of the practices for breeding and mass-propagation for crop plants are based on seed propagation being effectively obligate [i.e. biologically essential for essential...Moderator]. The hybrid-corn system, for instance, has represented a way of combining uniformity with high heterozygosity, which can be achieved far more simply by vegetative propagation - if that is feasible. It is perhaps fortunate that the long generation times of forest trees have deterred breeders from pursuing, within species, the hybrid-corn approach for which there was often no intrinsic need.
Forest trees also differ from many crop plants in that seed production, far from being the central purpose of the crop, is the end-result of an unwelcome diversion of resources from wood production.
One further difference is that with forest trees, plantations are now being grown alongside wild populations, or at least within easy range for gene contamination. With crop plants that is usually not so, a notable exception having been pointed out in the case of maize and teosinte (Message 19, June 9 ).
Rowland Burdon
New Zealand Forest Research Institute
Phone +64 7 343 5742 (direct)
+64 7 343 5899 (switchboard)
+64 7 345 6027 (home)
Fax +64 7 343 5330
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:16 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: GE trees - a southern perspective : 23
I must question the present slant in the debate around genetically engineered (GE) forestry and particularly to its application in third world circumstances. Beside reiterating my well worn views as to the doubtful viability of first world solutions to third world problems, it must be said that this debate has not examined the hard questions.
The discussion is largely academic due to the fact that, firstly, the life science companies gave an undertaking not to introduce Terminator, Traitor or other Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT) crops to the wild. It will take more than a bit of sweet talk to persuade a rather sceptical world that terminator is a sustainable and a viable way forward. Given the present feelings of disquiet presently growing around the world regarding GE food crops, it is doubtful if terminator technology would be accepted by anybody.
Further, the discussion is academic in that as far as I know, the present state of microbiology and genetics is, as yet, not freely able to transfer multiple gene constructs to a recipient genome. So, perhaps we may be able to presently make a terminator pine but it is unlikely that we can also give insect resistance and lower lignin content properties, etc., whilst also conferring sterility in some way or other.
Quite why we are discussing issues which remain in the realm of science fiction, is moot. It is I suppose, useful for us to theoretically explore the issues that will be raised before we are able to fully practice insertion of multiple constructs.
Given that up to 99% of trial trees may be discarded during selection for single construct insertion (Message 17, June 7), the extremely limited gene pool in forests of multiple construct trees would increase by magnitides the chances for catastrophic consequences, either through instability or through pathogen or pest attack (Message 15, June 6). It seems hardly worth our while, although scientists love a challenge. At what cost, one wonders. It seems logical to encourage low technology input, locally suited solutions, before introducing incrementally risky technology to nations with inadequate infrastructure.
If we are able to genetically engineer sterile, fast-growing, low-lignin, insect-resistant trees, I ask from a Southern perspective what possible use such an area could have for anything other than greed. Even a conventional pine forest offers, to a limited extent, the possibility of berries and birds.
Instead, Southern needs can presently be met by improving breeding and husbandry techniques of existing indigenous species. First things first. South Africa already has a massive problem containing plantations of invasive, water-thirsty exotic acacias and pines. Such plantations are often simply resources for developed nations.
Instead, companion planting recreating the full local diversity of forest ecosystems will provide not only timber but also food, forage, firewood, medicines, will encourage biodiversity and, generally, seems like a much more sensible solution than genetically engineering some unstable, unpredictable exotic import. I have compared growth of single species indigenous trees as opposed to companion planted indigenous trees and the growth difference can be up to +150%, when growing from a clear site. Monoculture plantations are wasteful and largely unsuited to developing world needs, except apparently when financed by outside institutions pursuing questionable economic growth. Conventional commercial forestry is often a poor investment for Southern nations, given the hidden human, social and environmental costs.
I believe that given our present knowledge, the introduction of GE forestry to the south is inviting another problem that we do not need. Let us first see how the developed nations cope. The South is no longer their testing ground.
Glenn Ashton
Ekogaia Foundation
Box 222
Noordhoek
7975
Cape Town
South Africa
[email protected]
[email protected]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 3:24 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: forestry applications for GURT; IPR : 24
Contributed by Dale R. Smith, Ph.D.
MetaGenetics New Zealand
[email protected]
Some thoughts on the potential for application of GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) in forestry. The two classes of GURT are discussed in turn:
A) Variety-level Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, V-GURT.
The engineered plant variety cannot be propagated from seed by the grower. One example of the V-GURT has been dubbed `Terminator' and is described in US patent No. 5,723,765.
Trees are long-term crops and an area of land planted in any given year will not be planted again for at least 10 years, usually more. The areas of land planted in a given tree variety are tiny compared to that used for agronomic species, and the rate of return on investment for biotech companies is probably not attractive for other than the main-stream Pinus, Acacia, or Eucalyptus species.
Perhaps a stronger argument against GURT in forestry is that the mean performance of open pollinated progeny of a stand planted today will be no better than that of the stand itself. Managers in the future would gain more from deploying cuttings from the original V-GURT stand rather than seedlings, even if they were gifted a magic potion that reversed the GURT effect. The addition of technology to prevent vegetative propagation from a stand of GURT trees may be possible, but implies a raft of developmental costs and technological sophistication in addition to prevention of germination. No such technology exists at present.
Finally, is GURT a potential candidate where regulations demand sterility in stands of transgenic trees? While superficially an attractive proposition, it would probably be imprudent to deploy transgenic trees where sterility is based on one or two genes acting late in seed development. Sexual reproduction has been so important in evolution that we must be aware of the possibility of activation of redundant genetic pathways that could render the seed fertile. At the very least, with present technology, it will take years rather than months to verify that the GURT is effective in a tree species. More importantly, current V-GURT strategies do not appear to affect pollen production.
B) Trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, T-GURT.
In T-GURTs only the `added value' transgenic trait is protected by technological means, and would be activated at the will of the grower. They are particularly suitable for delivery through vegetative propagation of planting stock. As an example, it has been proposed that Bt genes under the control of an inducible promoter could lie dormant until insect attack justified the application of a chemical, inducing the formation of gene products that are toxic to insects. However, the application of the inducing substance over a forest suggests that aircraft would be used. In most instances the cost of the "induction" chemical would be similar to that of a pesticide, that is, only a fraction of the application costs, compared with aircraft operation. No advantages here for a cash-strapped developing world?
T-GURTs might become viable if the gene induction agent was low cost. A pipe-dream maybe, but I can see a future scenario where gene induction is triggered by a photoreceptor operating in a fashion similar to the red - far red light sensitive phytochrome system. A laser situated on a mountaintop or even in a geostationary satellite might be used to induce gene activity over a large area of transgenic trees, for a relatively low cost.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, T-GURTs have a long way to go before they are technically reliable and politically acceptable. They may eventually be suitable for use in developing economies, but what about the intellectual property cost? Will any kind of transgenic tree technology be out of reach?
The finite life of patents is something that seems to be overlooked when the costs of intellectual property are discussed. The long rotation periods for forests mean that the cost of licensing today's technology will not be an issue for the trees planted twenty years from now, and beyond. Immediate use of the latest (expensive) technology is all very well for a company with a large current cash flow. Absorbing higher operational costs in the expectation of some debatable future return is perhaps not in the best interests of a developing economy.
Wait a few years, and at least there will be no licensing costs for todays "hot" gene constructs.
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]