|
Interviews touching on
seed-related Intellectual Property Protection
 On
Genetic Use Restriction
Technologies (GURTs)
Dr. Harry B. Collins
Vice President,
Technology Transfer
Delta and Pine Land
Company
USA
Dr. Harry B. Collins is
Vice President of
Technology Transfer for
Delta and Pine Land
Company, a world leader
in cotton planting seed.
The technology
protection system
patented by D&PL and the
USDA is one of Dr.
Collins' primary
responsibilities. He has
been with D&PL since
joining the company in
1974 as soybean breeder,
later becoming
Deltapine's Vice
President of Research.
In this research
leadership role, Dr.
Collins oversaw the
introduction of
transgenic traits into
D&PL's elite germplasm.
This past year, Dr.
Collins was appointed to
the USDA's Plant Variety
Protection Advisory
Board. He is a member of
the CropLife America
biotech committee. He is
active in the American
Seed Trade Association,
where he recently served
as chair of the
biotechnology committee
and where he is an
active member of the
Intellectual Property
Protection Committee.
Dr. Collins has a PhD in
genetics and plant
breeding from North
Carolina State
University in Raleigh, a
Master's degree in
agronomy and plant
breeding from the
University of Arizona at
Tucson and a Bachelor's
degree from Rutgers
University in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
What are Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies
(GURTs)?
Are there different
types of GURTs?
Genetic Use Restriction
Technologies (GURTs) are
transgenic technologies,
which either control the
germination of seed or
the expression of
specific traits in
plants.
There are two main types
of GURTs. They are
V-GURTs and T-GURTs.
V-GURTs are varietal
GURTs that, once
triggered, would cause
the grain or seed on the
farmer’s crop to be
normal in size, but
unable to germinate, if
saved for seed.
T-GURTs or trait GURTs,
generally, when
triggered in the
farmer’s field would
cause the plants to
express a specific
trait, such as insect
resistance. The T-GURT
trait would only be
triggered to express a
trait when that specific
trait is needed in a
particular growing
season and this trait
would only be paid for
when needed and used.
What has led to the
development of these
Genetic Use Restriction
Technologies?
One reason for
developing GURTs was the
need for biosafety in
transgenic plants, which
will prevent the escape
of transgenes to
non-transgenic crop
plants of the same
species or the
improbable, but possible
escape of transgenes
from crop plants to
closely-related wild
species.
A second reason for
developing GURTs is the
need for a physical
means of providing
intellectual property
protection (IPP) in crop
species in which there
have been few incentives
for breeding research
investments because of
seed saving by farmers,
which prevents the
recouping of research
investments after one
sale of seed.
How can these
technologies impact the
seed industry and
agriculture in general?
GURTs could increase
research investments in
crop species and
geographies that
historically have
received little breeding
attention from seed
firms because of the
lack of opportunities to
recoup research
investments due to seed
saving.
The increased
competition among seed
companies in markets
previously given minimal
breeding attention could
provide farmers with
more improved varieties
and technologies. These
new varieties could
provide higher yield
potentials and more and
improved pest
resistance.
Who are the opponents
of GURTs, and what
arguments do they put
forward?
Some non-government
organizations (NGOs)
have opposed the
introductions of GURTs
and have convinced
organizations in other
parts of the world,
especially in developing
countries that GURTs
should be banned. Some
of the reasons given for
opposing GURTs follow;
1. They would restrict
poor farmers' access to
new varieties and
technologies, 2. They
would restrict poor
farmers' access to new,
advanced germplasm with
which to make crosses
and develop locally
adapted varieties, 3.
They could cause crises
if seed supplies are low
due to poor seed
production the previous
year, 4. They could
cause seed production
problems if pollen from
a V-GURT variety grown
in a field next to a
non-V-GURT field caused
sterile seed in the
non-V-GURT field.
We disagree with these
viewpoints and feel
science proves our
position whereas our
opponents use only
anecdotal information
and fear to support
their positions. It
should be noted that
there has been very
little negative reaction
to GURTs in the United
States and several crop
commodity groups in the
U.S. have encouraged the
development of GURTs for
biosafety applications.
Who are the
proponents of GURTs, and
what arguments do they
put forward?
Scientists, both in the
U.S. and in other parts
of the world have
expressed interest in
using V-GURTs to prevent
the unwanted movement of
transgenes from
transgenic plants to
other plants.
Many seed companies,
both large and small,
have shown interest in
GURTs, both for the
biosafety they would
provide and the
Intellectual Property
Protection (IPP).
As stated earlier, it is
believed that GURTs
would have the effect,
with the increased
Intellectual Property
Protection, of
encouraging investments
in breeding and
biotechnology research
in crops and geographies
not addressed in the
past because of a lack
of full Intellectual
Property Protection.
What issues are these
technologies facing at
the international level?
There have been attempts
to ban GURTs in the FAO
and the CBD. Small
farmers in developing
countries and indigenous
people are used by NGOs
as examples of farmers
who will be hurt by
GURTs, mainly because,
it is asserted the small
farmers will not be able
to save seed and will
not be able to make
crosses to newly
introduced GURT
varieties to develop new
land races.
Proponents of GURTs have
argued that these small
farmers should have
choices available to
them as to whether they
want to grow GURT
varieties if they gain
advantages from these
varieties that will
offset the fact that
they cannot save.
The primary objective of
farmers should be to
increase production and
profit, not to be able
to save seed at the
expense of productivity.
We believe, given the
choice, farmers will
choose improved
varieties and
technologies. However,
it will be the farmers’
choice.
What are, in your
opinion, the
justifications for
implementing GURTs?
Biosafety and
Intellectual Property
Protection, with its
subsequent advantages to
the farmer customers in
providing them with
improved varieties for
greater efficiencies of
production.
Describe the
Technology Protection
System (TPS) which is
jointly owned by
USDA-ARS and Delta and
Pine Land Company.
TPS is a transgenic
system comprised of a
complex array of genes
and promoters which, in
the normal state, are
inactive. This means the
plants are normal and
produce normal seeds
which will germinate.
However, when the seeds
which are sold to the
farmer are treated with
a chemical prior to
bagging, it triggers, at
the time of germination,
an irreversible series
of genetic events. Once
this system has been
activated, the plants
that the farmers grow
are normal and produce
normal appearing, fully
developed seed. Because
of the removal of a
blocker between a Late
Embryogenesis Abundant
promoter (LEA) and a
germination disruptor
gene, the seed produced
on the farmers’ plants
are rendered nonviable
at dry down time.
It is important that
normal, fully developed
seeds are produced. With
many crops, these seeds,
or products of these
seeds, are the
commodities which the
farmer is producing and
for which he is paid.
Some targeted crops
include cotton,
soybeans, wheat and
rice.
What are the benefits
of the Technology
Protection System (TPS)?
1) Biosafety
The prevention of
the very improbable
but, possible escape
of transgenes,
through pollen, from
a crop plant to
plants of a closely
related wild species
The prevention of
transgenes escaping
to non-transgenic
plants of the same
crop species through
pollen.
Volunteer seed which
drop to the ground
will not germinate.
2) TPS would protect
North American
farmers from unfair
competition due to
large agricultural
countries obtaining
new technologies
free of charge, when
North American
farmers are paying
for the technologies
3) Intellectual
Property Protection
Because there would
be a return on
investment, TPS
should;
Encourage research
investment in
breeding research
Increase
incorporation of
transgenes in
varieties
This would be
beneficial to large
and small farmers,
in developed and
underdeveloped
countries, by
providing them with
more new and
advanced products
4) TPS would
probably prevent
grains from
germinating in the
heads under warm wet
conditions, thus
reducing a major
cause of poor grain
quality and
subsequent economic
losses.
Annex:
Position Paper of the
International Seed
Federation on Genetic
Use Restriction
Technologies (GURTs)
(June 2003)
What would you like
the readers to know
about your company?
Delta and Pine Land
Company is a
customer-focused
commercial breeder,
producer and marketer of
cotton planting seed, as
well as soybean seed in
the U.S. Cotton Belt.
For almost 90 years, the
Company has used its
extensive cotton plant
breeding programs
drawing from a diverse
germplasm base to
develop improved
varieties. Delta and
Pine Land (NYSE: DLP),
headquartered in Scott,
Mississippi, has offices
in eight states and
facilities in several
foreign countries.
Delta and Pine Land
Company is at
www.deltaandpine.com
Dr. Harry Collins can be
reached at
Harry.B.Collins@deltaandpine.com
|
