genomics and crop plant science in europe · genomics research by developing a coordinated strategy...

Genomics and crop plant science in Europe

EASACii | May 2004 | Genomics and crop plant science in Europe

EASAC Genomics and crop plant science in Europe | May 2004 | iii

Genomics and crop plant science in Europe

ContentsPage

Preface v

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Why is innovation in plant breeding important for Europe? 5

3 What has been the recent history? 7

4 What are the opportunities for R&D in the EU over the next 10-20 years? 9(i) Knowledge-based crop breeding 9(ii) Sustainability 9(iii) New green industries and premium agriculture 9

5 Current state of plant genomics research 11

6 Research priorities: technologies 13(i) Genome sequencing 13(ii) Proteomics 13(iii) Metabolomics 14(iv) Bioinformatics 14(v) Transfer of knowledge to crop improvement: molecular breeding 14

7 Research priorities: definition of target genes and traits 15(i) Exploitation of natural diversity 15(ii) Comparative genomics 16(iii) Improvement of crop stress resistance 16

8 Research priorities: definition of genomic targets for biodiversity 17(i) Molecular systematics and taxonomy 17(ii) Applications in characterising biodiversity 17(iii) Seed banks and their international role 17

9 Policy constraints on novel applications: non-food uses of crops 19(i) Biopackaging 19(ii) Wheat secondary products 19(iii) Composite materials 19

10 Providing the right conditions for crop plant genomics research and its applications 21(i) Cost benefit issues for choice of public investment in research 21(ii) Supporting private investment and meeting EU competitiveness goals 21(iii) Education and training 21(iv) Public-private relationships and knowledge transfer 21(v) Intellectual property rights 22(vi) Building public trust 23

11 The global policy domain 25

12 Developing the strategic framework 27

Annex 1 References 29

Annex 2 Working Group 30

EASACiv | May 2004 | Genomics and crop plant science in Europe

EASAC Genomics and crop plant science in Europe | May 2004 | v

Preface

At a time when the new science of genomics is openingup all sorts of possibilities for practical advances in severalmajor areas of activity, it is important that Europe ispositioned both to participate in the science and tobenefit from the advances. Indeed, Europe must be ablenot just to participate but to compete globally. This isparticularly true for agriculture and plant breeding.

Europe is suffering serious problems in agriculture and theenvironment – weaknesses in the farming industry,uncertain consumer confidence in its products, damageto the environment from intensive use of fertilisers andpesticides. This report describes how genomics researchprovides a flexible resource to develop more productiveand environmentally sustainable crop systems and newgreen industries dedicated to land reclamation,production of renewable energy and chemicalfeedstocks. The report concentrates on genomicsresearch for conventional agriculture and plant breedingrather than for the genetic modification of plants throughmanipulation of individual genes, which is a separateissue that has already been widely discussed both in thescientific literature and elsewhere.

The strategic opportunities for agriculture may be greatlyenhanced by scientific advances linking complex genetictraits to crop yield and quality. But fragmentation ofEuropean plant genomics research has led to duplicationof effort and waste of resources. Innovation goals canbest be achieved by appropriate funding and integrationof research across the European Union (EU). In order to

build competitiveness in plant breeding and to retaincompanies active in research and development within the EU, the report calls for a coherent vision in crop genomics, with improved coordination of multidisciplinaryprogrammes alongside investment in model plantresearch, promotion of public-private partnership andattention to a range of important generic elements thatunderpin research and innovation. Our messages aredirected to policy makers and opinion leaders in theCommission, Parliament and Member States. Werecognise the commitment already made by the ERANetand Technology Platform initiatives.

EASAC – the European Academies Science AdvisoryCouncil – is a means for the science Academies of Europeto work together to provide expert, independent adviceat EU level about the scientific aspects of public policyissues. This report, undertaken at EASAC’s own initiativeand expense and led on behalf of EASAC by theAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei, is a contribution to whatwe regard as an extremely important area of policy. Weare distributing the report widely and will work furtherwith the relevant institutions and individuals to stimulatediscussion and resolution of these key issues for Europe.

On behalf of EASAC and the Accademia Nazionale deiLincei, I should like to thank most warmly the members ofthe working group that produced this report (listed inAnnex 2) and others who contributed to the project bysubmitting evidence, meeting with the working groupand in other ways facilitating its progress.

Professor Edoardo VesentiniVice-Chairman, EASAC

EASACvi | May 2004 | Genomics and crop plant science in Europe

Summary

EASAC launched this study on crop plant sciences in 2003 to highlight the contribution of genomics researchto conventional plant breeding of food and non-foodcrops. Genomics research has the potential to open upnew applications in both conventional agriculture andGMO-based agriculture. The promotion of a range ofinnovative approaches to plant breeding is fundamentalto European needs for enhancing agricultural productivityand sustainability and for food security, diet and health,environmental safety and novel crops. In this report weconcentrate on the issues arising from genomics researchfor conventional agriculture and plant breeding ratherthan for the genetic modification of plants throughmanipulation of individual genes, which is a separateissue that has already been widely discussed both in thescientific literature and elsewhere.

Advances in plant genomics research have opened a newera in plant breeding where the linkage of genes to traitsinspires more efficient and predictable breedingapproaches. European agriculture will take advantage ofthese new opportunities only if a coherent EU science andinnovation strategy is developed to integrate currentlyfragmented research efforts, to tackle barriers toprogress, to focus on reduction to practice, and to allowtechnology and information to be presented to plantbreeders in a suitably practicable form.

The emerging research opportunities, coupled withsocietal and market demand, bring into range importantnew objectives for:

· improved plant breeding for diversified and healthycrops, and enhanced nutritive levels of food;

· sustainable systems, characterised by high yielding, highquality, low input agriculture, and preparing for climatechange;

· new green industries dedicated to land remediation andreclamation, and to the production of renewable energysources and chemical feed stocks, biomaterials,bioreactors;

· the establishment of partnership with developingcountries.

In order to strengthen EU capabilities to attain theseobjectives, genomics research is required across a broadfront:

· setting up high throughput technology platforms forgenome sequencing, transcriptomics, proteomics,metabolomics, informatics, including proceduresintegrating functional genomics with cell biology;

· definition of target genes associated with plantprocesses and traits, and concerning growth,development, reproduction, photosynthesis, responsesto environmental conditions and pathogens, andformation of specialised structures;

· characterisation of biodiversity, including its measureand application to search for new biologically activecompounds of plant origin.

While these priorities may be equally recognised by othercountries (particularly in North America and Asia), the EUmust be actively involved in order to serve local needs inplant breeding and also to remain globally competitive.Several genomics research initiatives are currently runningin EU Member States. Nevertheless, there is a pressingneed for better, shared, awareness of the ongoingactivities in order to identify the possibilities for improvedcoordination; joint, multidisciplinary, programmes;funding of gaps; and avoidance of unhelpful duplication.There must also be resolution of the inadvertentconstraints on research activities and the application ofthe results, occasioned by other EU legislation (forexample energy, chemicals, and recycling policies).Furthermore, promoting cohesion in public funding forthe priorities of plant science, and the linkage to plantbreeding, must be accompanied by attention to thegeneric elements that underpin efforts in research andinnovation: building public trust, education and training,protection of intellectual property, promoting public-private partnership and the retention of R&D-intensivecompanies within the EU.

Main recommendations

1 A major opportunity exists for EU policy-makers,across the Commission, Parliament and Council ofMinisters, to capitalise on the new era in plantgenomics research by developing a coordinatedstrategy for identifying and resourcingmultidisciplinary research priorities in crop biologyand crop improvement. There are two major goals forthe reduction to practice: from genomics research onmodel plants to crops; and from crop science to cropbreeding.

2 We strongly recommend that a coherent EuropeanCommission research strategy be developed thatintegrates and balances the work carried out onenabling technologies, process-oriented goals (such as genome sequencing, construction of markerlibraries) and problem-oriented goals (identificationof genes related to particular functions and traits). DG Research should also outline a longer-termresearch strategy and set a benchmark for EUinvestment by comparison with projected North

EASAC Genomics and crop plant science in Europe | May 2004 | 1

American spending on plant science. The coordinatedresearch agenda in support of European innovationand competitiveness will need to be supported byincreased recognition of the importance ofmaintaining repositories of seeds, cultivars andvarieties. We support calls for the establishment of anetwork of European and international Bankspreserving cultivars and varieties of wild relatives.

3 We also strongly recommend that in addition toresearch dedicated to food crop breeding, a renewedeffort to develop a coordinated policy in support ofnew green industries, based on transnationalresearch and considering activities dedicated toremediation, renewable energy and natural productbiosynthesis, be implemented. This strategiccoherence will require the active involvement ofseveral Directorates-General in addition to DGResearch, eg Agriculture, Enterprise, Environment,Health and Consumer Protection.

4 We welcome and encourage the ERANet PlantGenomics (ERA-PG) Project goals of clarifying currentindividual national efforts and developing impetus forconnectivity. Accelerating ERA-PG progress willrequire both DG Research and Member Statecommitment to identify and resolve impediments tocoordination such as national differences in public-private sector relationships – as well as the means tobuild critical mass.

5 We also welcome the Plant Genomics TechnologyPlatform and urge the European Commissiontogether with the Council of Ministers to ensure thatthis is fully supported by stakeholders – to confirmpriorities for social needs, and to develop options forfacing key challenges such as consumer engagementand science-based regulation, as well as exploringresearch opportunities.

6 In consequence of ERA-PG and the TechnologyPlatform, the Commission, led by DG Research, mustnow rapidly define priorities and resources for plantscience in Framework Programmes 6 and 7, includingoptions for training, involvement of the private sectorand EU-international collaborations. More broadly, itis also timely to consider the basic researchopportunities in plant science within the context ofcurrent developments on the European ResearchArea and European Research Council.

7 In making the case for new research investments, it isimportant for all funders and researchers to considerrelative cost-benefit issues and whether currentresources are appropriately structured – for examplewith respect to an appropriate balance betweenefforts in research institutions and universitydepartments, and for the revival of public plantbreeding activities.

8 In addition to identifying research priorities for newagriculture systems in the expanded EU, it will beimportant for both the Commission and Parliamentto consider the potential for technology partnershipswith developing countries, where they contribute tothe achievement of EU objectives. Identification ofhow the EU can support skills and training as part ofcapacity building worldwide is particularly relevant.

9 It is essential to understand the potential for EU policydevelopment in, for example, energy, chemicals andrecycling, to have the unintended consequence ofrestricting research opportunities and theirapplication (food and non-food crops). This is, again,an issue for multiple DGs and Parliament. Thesebroader concerns must be incorporated within theongoing work of the Technology Platform.

EASAC2 | May 2004 | Genomics and crop plant science in Europe

1 Introduction

European agriculture faces conflicting pressures – toincrease farmers' income; to respond to consumerdemands for food safety, quality and diversity; and tosafeguard and sustain natural resources in general, andparticularly those on which agriculture depends. Thecoming decades will require increasing global agriculturalproduction, with reduced inputs, and with a smallerenvironmental footprint. Promotion of innovation isfundamentally important in addressing these needs forenhancing agricultural productivity and sustainabilityacross a broad front – food safety and security, diet andhealth, environmental safety and novel crops – and forcapitalising on a range of new opportunities in plantscience (Porceddu, 1999).

The European Union faces strategic challenges inclarifying its agenda for research and application. Thejoint European Commission - US Task Force (US-EC TaskForce on Biotechnology Research, 2001) noted thatfundamental plant processes – growth, development,reproduction, photosynthesis and the responses toenvironmental conditions and pathogens – are central tonearly every agricultural issue facing society, and yet,surprisingly, little is known about the molecular biologybehind these essential processes. Currently, severalindividual initiatives in genomics research have beenproposed, but a better and shared awareness is necessaryif the EU authorities are to determine the opportunitiesfor coordination and partnership across Member Statesand between the public and private sectors.

To address some of these EU strategic issues, EASAClaunched in 2003 this study on crop plant genomics – theset of knowledge and technologies that allows theunderstanding of structural and functional aspects of thecrop plant genomes of greatest relevance to the EU. Thestudy focuses on how knowledge of genomes of majorcrops contributes to conventional plant breeding for thegeneration of new cultivars with particular characteristics,

for improving crop husbandry, and in support of post-harvest technologies (for example, food processing). Thestudy does not concern the application of genomicsresearch to the genetic modification of plants throughmanipulation of individual genes (a review of current R&Don GM plants in Europe was published by the EuropeanCommission, Joint Research Centre in 2003).

The terms of reference for the study were:

· to summarise the current state of genomics researchrelated to the major crop plants in the EU, and thepotential application of this research to conventionalplant breeding, crop husbandry and post-harvestconservation and processing;

· to make recommendations about future researchpriorities and research requirements, particularly in thepublic sector, and to identify the key elements of an EUstrategy for crop plant genomics over the next 15 years;

· to review the competitive position of the EU in thescience of crop plant genomics and in its applications,and to make recommendations as necessary forstrengthening capability in this area.

The study was carried out by a working group appointedby EASAC and chaired by Professor Gian TommasoScarascia-Mugnozza; the full membership is given inAnnex 2. The members participated in their individualcapacity and not as representatives of their organisations.The draft report was reviewed by the EASAC Council andBiotechnology Strategy Group. During the course of thisstudy, a call for evidence was published on the EASACwebsite and key stakeholders were individuallycontacted. We are most grateful to those who assisted usin this way. The external feedback was incorporatedduring Working Group deliberations as part of theresearch on key issues.


Global food production has doubled since 1960 (1961-1998comparison for grain and oilseeds, International Food PolicyResearch Institute, 2001). The increase in productivity wasbuilt on successful interaction between crop husbandryand plant breeding, underpinned by publicly-funded R&D.In the absence of continued improvements in crop yield,quality and protection, additional untilled land will have tobe converted to crop production to feed the growingglobal population (predicted to rise to 8 billion by 2030).However, only agriculturally marginal land remains for theexpansion of food production, and some of the land, waterand other natural resources are being diverted to other uses.

Genetic improvement of plants began in the Neolithic agewith the domestication of cereals and pulses. Since then,a steady increase in plant yield has been achieved, withthe last century having seen an impressive acceleration inthe capacity to produce more food per unit of land.However, there is no guarantee that past increases inproductivity can be extrapolated to the future. The principalsystems of cereal crop cultivation (irrigation or rain-fedproduction of rice, corn and wheat in Asia, US, China andEurope) are still highly productive but it is uncertainwhether they will prove sustainable in terms of future soilfertility (Joint Committee of the Italian NationalAcademies of the Lincei and of the Sciences, 2003). Plantbreeders in Europe do, nevertheless, continue theirtradition of efficiently creating superior new field cropsand horticultural varieties by conventional breedingapproaches. One example is the tomato, wherein at leastseven major genetic factors have been introduced fromwild species into modern varieties in order to provideresistance against fungal, bacterial and viral diseases.

Plants are the planet's best chemical factories: withapproximately 30 000 genes, higher plants synthesisemore than 200 000 different primary and secondarymetabolites. Thus plant genomics studies are likely toadvance our knowledge in the fields of primary andsecondary metabolism, and, in general, our 'greenchemistry' capability.

The predictions for Europe over the next 10 years are thatcommodity food price will remain low (actually they willdecrease for cereals and rice – European Commission,Agriculture DG, 2003) and that food security is not likelyto be a major concern. But the EU economy must play aleading role in the global development of agriculturebecause of its trade balance interests. EU agriculture willalso change in response to the reduction of production-based subsidies, because of the growing competitionfrom the other States now joining the Community, andbecause of the emergence of social claims addressing theneed of a better environment. Europe, moreover, cannotnecessarily capitalise on R&D achieved elsewhere. Unlikemedical and mechanical innovations that are oftenglobally applicable, it is essential to elaborate agricultural

innovation suitable to local conditions. For example, wheat,maize, sugar beet, soybean cultivations are based on day-length sensitive crop varieties developed specifically forEuropean latitudes and climatic conditions. In addition, inEurope the cultivated land is inter-mixed with woodyareas and pastures that constitute pest reservoirs, so thatdifferent crop varieties may be required, compared withthe more uniform conditions that characterise othermajor world producer regions. Thus, it is important forthe EU to develop and apply its excellence in science inthis area, both in order to address local needs for plantbreeding and to remain competitive at the global level.

The Life Sciences and Biotechnology strategy documentfrom the European Commission (2002a) emphasised:

Life sciences and biotechnology are widely regardedas one of the most promising frontier technologiesfor the coming decades…In agro-food area,biotechnology has the potential to deliver improvedfood quality and environmental benefits throughagronomically-improved crops.

While GM crops still provoke European controversies,plant genomics research can greatly contribute toconventional plant breeding. The recent EURAGRIconference (European Commission, 2002b) expands onthe challenge:

The citizen of Europe expects science to come up withanswers to their concerns. In particular, they areconcerned about food safety, the use of geneticallymodified organisms, exploitation of naturalresources, the orientation of agricultural subventionsand the future of world trade. The agriculturalresearch agenda must address these questions andprovide a sound scientific basis for decision-makersand consumers. Scientific information is particularlysignificant and abundant in the agricultural sector,and we need to develop this resource, whilerendering scientific expertise more transparent, closerto the consumer and better co-ordinated at theEuropean level.

In articulating these challenges the EURAGRI conferenceidentified four key interfaces: between agriculturalsciences and other sciences; between scientists andconsumers, between scientists and policy-makers, andbetween scientists and industry.

With this report, EASAC intends to inform and nurturethese interfaces. Under-investment in plant genomicscould result in the exclusion of the EU from advanced cropsciences – what is at stake is the ability of the EU tocontrol the evolution of its agricultural sector. Publicpolicy-makers in the EU cannot responsibly leave the R&Dagenda to the private sector and to those outside the EU.


2 Why is innovation in plant breeding important for Europe?

Conventional crop breeding is time-consuming, requires arepetitive process of selection to modify the desired traitsand has the drawback of a potential co-transfer ofundesired genes. Conventional approaches are based onthe exploitation of natural genetic variation available incrop land races and in related wild species and on itsincrease using induced mutagenesis. More empirical thanscientific, previous approaches were restricted to naturalrecombination, were unpredictable and held decreasingprospect for significant advance. The advent of plantgenomics within the last decade has inaugurated a newera in plant breeding by means of:

· the identification of genetic loci for key traits, includingthose affecting quantitative variation;

· the development of enhanced scanning methodologiesfor detecting useful genetic variation in crop plants andin their wild relatives;

· the more rapid transfer of knowledge and technologiesfrom model to crop species, integrating new scientificdiscoveries in plant breeding;

· the acquisition of new tools to assist complex breedingprogrammes, defining a procedure known as MarkerAssisted Selection (MAS).

If the initial investments in plant genetics and genomicscan be sustained and well-integrated, the linkagerelationships between specific genes and traits would beexpected to inspire more efficient and predictablebreeding programs in support of the EU strategic goals,including the consideration of industrial and societalneeds. The GM controversy has obscured recentachievements of classical breeding (for example,conventional herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistantoilseed rape, cotton, soy and maize, and iron-rich ricecultivars). The new technologies, such as MAS, 'couldoffer to plant breeding what the jet engine has brought toair travel' (Knight, 2003).

Plant genomics research in the EU has been highlysuccessful when focusing on reference genomes of yeastand Arabidopsis, which is a close relative to crop plantsthat belong to the Brassica genus. This activity has servedas an assembly template for subsequent draft sequencesof other genomes and to assign function to genes inparticular metabolic pathways and to major events at thecellular, tissue and whole organism level of complexity

(integrative or systems biology). European researchersnow have the opportunity to be creative in integratingmodel and crop plant research. They can exploit modelsystem research for understanding crop behaviour andperformance, thus enhancing competitiveness, whilecrop priorities will increasingly feed back to highlight keytargets for studies aimed at understanding the underlyingfundamental biological processes relevant to cropimprovement. However, many traits that are desirable inmany other crops are often not represented in modelorganisms. Ongoing work in Medicago truncatula (amodel plant for the legumes), rice, tomato, maize, wheatand Prunus is now needed to increase the understandingof the biology of crops of major economic importance.

Genomics is improving our knowledge of the geneticmakeup of living organisms, by allowing characterisationof gene functions and interactions, and understanding ofthe complex frameworks among genes controllingspecific metabolic pathways and their relationship to thephenotype. Most traits of plant breeding interest arecomplex and quantitative in nature: genomics willpromote the identification of genes involved in thecontrol of quantitative traits and the understanding oftheir functional and regulatory hierarchy. Thus genomicsresearch will permit the modification of the plantphenotype by acting on a few regulatory genes throughselection or by modifying their expression.

Research has just begun to unravel the complex molecularinteractions that govern plant behaviour (US-EC TaskForce on Biotechnology Research, 2001). However, cropresearch is more costly and requires more time than in thecase of model plant species. While significant crop researchhas been undertaken in the public domain, this is nowmuch surpassed by industry investments. In the presentpolitical situation of the EU, however, private companiesare pessimistic about the future of plant genomicsresearch and of its application in Europe. It is evident thatthey are reducing their in-house research located in theEU, with a consequent impact on the level of funding ofuniversity programmes and of joint venture/spin-offinitiatives. Globally, public funding of agricultural R&D isdeclining (International Food Policy Research Institute,2001) and there is perceived need to re-prioritise, as wellas to capitalise on the research advances. Accordingly, therecent World Bank evaluation of the programmes of theConsultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch calls for a refocus on genetic research forenhancing productivity (Kennedy, 2003).


3 What has been the recent history?

The development of sequencing techniques and theavailability of genomics information on model organismshave greatly influenced the disciplines of plant and cropscience. Crop plant genomics, by providing new tools foranalysing gene variation and function at the populationand ecological levels as well as the cellular level, willstimulate innovation in agriculture – but only if a coherentEU strategy across the key scientific disciplines and linkingto innovation policy is developed to unify hithertofragmented research efforts, while addressing clearly thecurrent barriers to progress. Greater cohesion is vital, because:

· publicly funded plant genomics research must beintegrated across multiple technologies, as describedlater in this report, including genomics information fromnon-plant species, animals and pathogens, to feedsystem biology;

· genomics research is expensive and duplication of efforts iswasteful; but the successful European yeast andArabidopsis programmes show what can be achievedthrough integration and collaboration;

· current fragmentation of research hinders effective EUcontribution in development of science and policy at theglobal level.

The objectives for the next two decades can be conceivedas the combination of science push (bringing newresearch opportunities within range) with societal pull(addressing growing environmental and industrial issues).Rapid progress will require the coordination of work onproblem-oriented goals (for example, the identification ofgenes associated with particular processes and traits),process-oriented goals (for example, sequencing of cropplant genomes (initiatives have been set up to sequencethe genomes of tomato, potato, wheat, corn), geneticand physical maps, marker libraries, populations ofmutants) and enabling technologies (for example,proteomics, micro-arrays, gene silencing tools, andbioinformatics). If this integrated strategy is to besuccessful, there must be emphasis on the genetic andmolecular analysis of complex traits, particularly of thoserelated to yield potential (under environmentally-sustainable farming systems), quality for human, animaland industrial end-users, sustainable stress tolerance anddisease resistance. Achieving these objectives requiresalso the adoption of a 'reduction to practice approach',enabling technology and information to be presented topractising plant breeders in a form that can be applied.

What research is coming into range?

(i) Knowledge-based crop breeding – diversifiedagriculture systems with competitive and societaladvantage, by:

· understanding fundamental plant biology aspectslike perenniality, apomixes, asexual reproduction,sexual reproduction biology, domesticationimplications, crop architecture, flower and seeddevelopment, acclimatisation, adaptation;

· reducing levels of toxic and anti-nutritionalcompounds like alkaloids in lupins, lectins in beans,phytic acid in legumes;

· improving micronutrient (eg tocopherol, folic acid)and amino acid composition (for nutritionally-improved varieties);

· improving the efficiency of specialised crops, liketrees, by understanding and modifying metabolicpathways and wood formation, and by reducing theduration of the juvenile stage, which is important incultivation of fruit trees, variety development, insilviculture and in natural resource management.

(ii) Sustainability – for high yielding, high quality, lowinput agriculture, an approach requiring also thestudy of the interactions with other organisms andthe information on related genomics, by:

· understanding of the genetics of pest and pathogenresistance, of symbiosis, nutritional use efficiencyand stress tolerance (drought, high salt, mineral);

· development of crops enabling decreasedapplication of pesticides. Not only does resistance topests need to be understood, but also tolerance topest damage, an approach that should notendanger other species or promote resistance;

· decreasing inputs of chemical fertiliser (lesspolluting, more cost efficient), for example bycapitalising on information from specialisedassociation between legumes and micro-organismsto fix atmospheric nitrogen and to make soilphosphate available to plants;

· designing major crops adapted to foreseeableclimate changes by understanding the geneticcontrol and molecular events of vernalisation andchanges in pathogen distribution, and identifyingscientific options for improving the desired traits;

· designing forest trees specialized in the sequestrationof CO2 and of other atmospheric gases.

(iii) New green industries and premium agriculture –potentially attractive economic alternatives togenerating food surpluses.


4 What are the opportunities for R&D in the EU over the next 10-20 years?

· Remediation and reclamation - tacklingenvironmental pollutants, for example bysequestering heavy metals. It is estimated thatapproximately 1.4 million contaminated sites exist inthe EU, with projected clean-up costs of 400 billionEuro. Phytoremediation is currently encumbered bylimitations precluding widespread application, andonly metal hyper-accumulating plant species areable both to tolerate and to sequester highconcentrations of metals. Most of these species areslow growing and produce a low biomass(Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, UK, 2002).

· Renewable energy sources – plants can substitutefor fossil fuels in the form of biomass. However,photosynthesis is inefficient, converting only 1% ofincoming solar radiation to biomass energy; smallimprovements in the efficiency of thisphotochemical process could make energy crops aneconomically viable option (Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, 2002).Commitment to science push is restricted by lackboth of market pull and of awareness of end-users.Biodiesel (esterified rapeseed oil) is a proven dieselsubstitute whose merits were perceivedunfavourably by some EU Member States a decadeago but which should be examined in the light ofchanging views on energy security, oil price, CAPchanges and best practice. Bioethanol is also provenas a potential constituent of transport fuels, butcurrently only 5% of EU ethanol production is soused. The fermentation technology from sugars andstarches is relatively mature and there are additionalopportunities to utilize other feed stocks (forexample, wheat straw, sugar bagasse, pulp andpaper waste, wood) that require further dedicatedresearch and a specific type of development.

· Renewable chemical feed stocks replacingpetrochemicals – mainly to generate commoditypolymers from olefins, particularly thermoplastics.The current industry trend is moving away from theEU to regions where cheap hydrocarbon feed stocks

are available. The recent commercial developmentof polylactic acid from cornstarch provides proof ofprinciple on the economics of polymers productionfrom crops (Chemical Industries Association, 2003).Higher plants produce a spectrum of fatty acidsuseful as starting materials for a wide variety ofindustrial chemicals (paints and coatings,detergents; see chapter 9). There will be greenerindustries (for example, less factory solvent use), andenvironmental criticism for such initiatives onprinciple is misplaced.

· Bioreactors – improved production and deliveryvehicles of natural products (new medicinal agents,vitamins, pigments, fragrances and flavours). Manyof these complex chemicals are chiral and difficult toproduce synthetically. Examples of plant-derivedchemicals for which demand currently exceedssupply (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs, UK, 2002) include cancerchemotherapy drugs such as taxol, artemesinin (anovel anti-malarial drug with particular potential fordeveloping countries), opiates as painkillers and thebeta acids of hops, which have anti-microbialactivity useful for disinfection of food productionsystems. Some of the new production processesmay utilise high mass bioreactors such as micro-algae (for example, Haematococcus pluvialis forketocarotenoid astaxanthin production) rather thancrop plants. Although underpinning advances inplant genomics research will be broadly applicable,the pathways of application will be vulnerable totechnological change.

· Nutraceuticals – which require considerable furtherscientific and regulatory consideration. Someestimates suggest that the nutraceutical market inEurope could reach 300 billion Euro within 10 years(Ronchi, 2003). Nutraceuticals might be generatedin bioreactors, although their direct production inplant matrices (seeds, fruits, vegetables) – known as'biofortification' – appears much simpler from theregulatory viewpoint and economically moreconvenient.


The ERANet Project on plant genomics (ERA-PG, 2003)proposes to survey EU Member State efforts incomparison with current and emerging competitorcountries (for example, US, China, Japan, Canada, Brazil).Outside Europe other countries are committingconsiderable strategic resources to this research area. Forexample, Australia has recognised the importance offocusing on the discovery of plant mechanisms of salt anddrought tolerance. The Australian Centre for PlantFunctional Genomics aims to broaden the geneticunderstanding of crops and provide new resources totransfer the results of academic research to plantbreeders. The USA has multiple Government Departmentresearch funders supporting genome research, includingUSDA, DoE, NIH, USAID and DoD, in addition to largecharitable contributors as Rockefeller, Noble and Hughes.The major US initiative is the National ScienceFoundation-funded Plant Genome Research Program,

part of the cross-Departmental National Plant GenomeInitiative whose ultimate goal is 'to understand structureand function of all plant genes at levels from molecular tothe organismal and to interactions within ecosystems'(National Science Foundation, 2003). Approximately$350 million has been spent since this programme startedin 1998 and it has been estimated that the objectives forthe next 5 years will require $1.3 billion. This estimate,providing a benchmark for EU spending, includes $400million for genome sequencing (finished sequences ofrice and maize and draft sequences of gene-rich regionsof other key species); $200 million for functionalgenomics (Arabidopsis and rice internationalcollaborations); $300 million for translational genomicssupporting a broader scientific community with a specificinterest in plant biology; $250 million for datamanagement and informatics; and $125 million fortraining, education and outreach.


5 Current state of plant genomics research

Country France Germany Netherlands UKProgramme Genoplante GABI Centre for Biosystems GARNetand funding € 200M for 5 years € 50M for 4 years Genomics € 16M for 3 years

(1999) (1999) € 50M for 5 years (2003)

Partners Research institutes Government, companies Universities, Universities, (INRA, CNRS) companies, research institutes, research institutes Government companies

Species Arabidopsis, rice, Mainly barley, Potato, Tomato, Arabidopsis incorn, wheat, oilseed Arabidopsis, also rape, Arabidopsis GARNet and otherrape, pea, sunflower sugar beet, potato, rye, plant species in

maize, poplar CropNet

Table 1 Individual European Member States are committing significant resources in plant genomics

GABI = Genome analysis of the plant biological systems; GARNet = Genomic Arabidopsis resource network

Other EU Member State national plant genome programsare found in Spain (24 million Euro /5 years) and Sweden(50 million Euro /5 years), while Belgium, Finland, Italyand Norway have currently much smaller programs (ERA-PG 2003). In Greece, the Hellenic Scientific Society forGenetic Improvement of Plants promotes plant breeding,and research teams at the Universities of Athens andThessaloniki are working on molecular genetics and plantbreeding. The total EU spending from the provisionalERANet data is about 80 million Euro annually.

In general, EU Member State programmes combinefunctional analysis of model plant genomes with specificresearch on traits or problems related to the mostimportant crops for Europe. Progress is being made inlinking basic and applied research and in catalysingpublic-private interactions. Operational goals cover

developing expertise and competitiveness in plantgenomics, standardising research tools, creating nationalnetworks to access technology platforms, technologytransfer and transfer of results into breeding practice, andinternational cooperation. While these individual effortsand commitments to cooperate are commendable, muchremains to be done in identifying duplications and/oromissions, in aligning and integrating research objectives,and in managing mutual interests with centres ofexcellence outside the EU.

Some enthusiasm is evident for bilateral and multilateralcollaboration across the EU. The pioneering example isthe Genoplante-GABI integration active since 2001 (nowalso including Spain), centred on Arabidopsis research.Unrealised opportunities for joint wheat and Solanaceaeprogrammes exist and, in general, an imperative for each

Member State is to evaluate the prospective benefits ofintegrated programmes.

We recognise that ERA-PG will achieve significantclarification and impetus for coordination, identifyingcommon priorities and existing efforts that, if aligned,would have a significant added value. ERANet aims todevelop the common knowledge necessary for acoherent generation of policies and efficient use oflimited resources. This programme may become the basisfor EU joint programmes and for strengthening thefoundations of a crop science European Research Area.We welcome ERANet as an instrument in buildingconnectivity and synchronisation. But in order toaccelerate the implementation of the conclusions reachedby ERANet, it will be necessary to establish researchgroups with a critical mass (including scientific educationand training), to turn goals into tangible actions, toformulate and implement joint research plans, and topursue research priorities including the options for newresearch structures. The ERANet experience, moreover,should help to identify barriers that currently hindercollaboration in research across the EU Member States(for example, varying practices in university-industry

relationships), and to clarify what is best done at nationallevel and what at EU level. We assume that most MemberStates should have a stake in research on model plantgenomes of Arabidopsis, Medicago, Rice, Prunus, Poplarand in the development of technology platforms, alsocoupled to national/regional activity translating availableresults to crops of local importance (see table 1). Lookingahead to EU enlargement, we do not see major needs forresearch on other crops: the new challenge resides in theincreasing competitiveness from accession statesagriculture systems.

In the meantime, the research community must also drawon the resources of Framework Programme 6. Sometopics proposed by the Framework are of interest to plantscience, albeit they are less apparent than in FrameworkPrograms 4 and 5. Despite an increase of the life scienceshare of the total funding, it is disappointing that in the6th Framework no specific plant thematic priorities arementioned. Nonetheless, the recently approval of the 15 million Euro project on legume genetics is encouraging,as well as the commitment to develop a TechnologyPlatform in plant genomics (see below).


Genomics enables the comprehensive study of the overallexpression of genes, proteins and metabolites in afunctionally relevant context and facilitates newdiscoveries in biology. To support the goals identified inthis report for plant science, and taking into accountcurrent national efforts, it is urgent for the EU across theCommission and Member States (national fundingagencies) to identify and allocate the appropriate level ofresources and facilities necessary for integrated activitiesof genomics, proteomics and metabolomics developinghigh-throughput (automated, miniaturised), cost-effective technologies and efficient management of largeamounts of data. Broadly, the initiatives described inchapter 5, together with the research priorities outlined inchapters 6-8, must be led by DG Research. But it is alsoimportant for the research community to buildcommitment in support of the innovation goals fromother relevant DGs – eg Agriculture, Enterprise,Environment, Health and Consumer Protection – and theEuropean Parliament.

(i) Genome sequencing. The in-depth analysis of theknown and predicted coding sequences of modelgenomes has provided an invaluable resource tobegin a basic resolution of the plant genome.Limitations, nevertheless, exist in extrapolating theavailable results to crops. For example, more than70% of known maize proteins do not match anyArabidopsis protein. Gene information deficit isparticularly evident for plants that form specialisedstructures like tuber in potato, fleshy fruit in tomato,root development in sugar beet, bulb development inonion, foliage structure and fruit ripening in fruittrees, and wood formation in woody plants.Comparative genomics becomes increasinglyinformative as additional species are sequenced, andit is vital that much of this activity is carried out withinthe public domain. Priorities should be selectedaccording to genetic tractability, genome size andcomplexity, genome fraction represented byrepetitive sequences and complexity, and thepotential for transfer of data and tools toagronomically important relatives.

However, while sequencing technology continues todevelop rapidly and costs to decrease significantly,the complete analysis of a large genome still requiresmajor financial resource and technical limitations mayalso restrict progress. The estimated size of plantgenomes range from 130 million base pairs forArabidopsis, 430 for rice, 550 for Medicagotruncatula and poplar, 770 for apple and 950 fortomato, to 5000 for barley, 16 000 for wheat and 18 000 for onion. It is still unrealistic to use currenttechnologies to sequence the larger genomes of cropspecies most important for the EU, and the current

goal should be to progress draft sequences for gene-rich genomic regions, or the sequencing of expressedsequences (ESTs). For this purpose physical maps ofseveral crops are currently being constructed. Thesemaps will form the starting point for selection of thegene-rich genome regions. While it should beappreciated that genomic approaches used tocircumvent cost and technical limitations may notreliably capture weakly expressed genes (for example,transcription factors and regulatory genes, or geneslocated in heterochromatin or highly methylatedregions), major advances in enabling technologies –such as the generation of libraries of genetic markers,or the creation of dedicated microarrays – arebecoming available in a range of crop species. Theuse of markers in combination with novel physicaland linkage mapping techniques has led to theassembly of dense genetic maps for many cropspecies and to the location of genetic factorsimportant to these crops, such as those supportingvernalisation, delayed senescence, day lengthinsensitivity, dwarfism, disease resistance and stresstolerance, bread-making quality. All of theseagronomic traits now require detailed study throughmolecular approaches.

The research opportunities are exciting and rapidprogress will be facilitated by internationalcollaboration. Individual research groups might focuson sequencing chromosome segments most relevantto local interests and expertise, with a coherentstrategy to support and facilitate development andintegration of technology platforms and researchoutputs.

(ii) Proteomics1. The systematic analysis anddocumentation of proteins is an emerging researcharea that addresses not only questions concerningthe abundance and distribution of proteins (withincell, tissue, organism) but also their functional roles.Advance in proteomics depends heavily on newapplication and standardisation of techniques such astwo-dimensional gel electrophoresis and massspectrometry. Several proteomic platforms arealready active in Europe. A need is evident tocoordinate current and future proteomic projectsdedicated to EU crops and to allocate to themsufficient resources to access existing platforms.

It is common knowledge that almost every proteinfunction relies on the transient or stable formation ofprotein complexes. Therefore, comprehensiveinformation about protein interactions andinteraction networks provides a valuable contributionto the understanding of protein function on agenomic scale. Powerful new technologies have been


6 Research priorities: technologies

1 An approach that seeks to identify and characterise complete sets of protein, and protein-protein interactions, in a given species.

developed that facilitate the systematic large-scaleidentification of protein-protein interactions.Different experimental approaches proved reliableand efficient for genome-wide interaction mapping.A necessary step will be the integration ofappropriate bioinformatics tools to analyze the vastquantity of interaction data and to extract biologicalmeaningful information.

(iii) Metabolomics2. This recent 'omics' technologyproposes a comprehensive, unbiased, high-throughput analysis of complex metabolite mixturesthat require integrated procedures for optimal sampleextraction, metabolite separation, detection andidentification, automated data gathering, analysisand quantification. There is no single analyticaltechnique that visualises the metabolome becausethe chemical complexity and biological variance aretoo large. Nevertheless, metabolomics is being drivenprimarily by advances in mass spectrometry coupledwith chromatographic separation procedures.Adoption of other standard technologies (inparticular, NMR) also shows promise, but the majorlimitation to applying these techniques is the absenceof high throughput analytical processes.

As with genomics, the first tasks for proteomics andmetabolomics were associated with the analysis ofhuman, animal and pathogen samples, often drivenby the prospect of biomedical applications.Proteomics and metabolomics are now being appliedto plant systems but research is in its infancy andthere is critical need for sharing of reference material,standardisation of research tools and sustainedbioinformatics support. Such challenges can, again,be faced effectively only through coordination andcollaborative effort at the European level. Extensionsof standard metobolomic platforms to crop plants arestill major problems in Europe .

(iv) Bioinformatics. EASAC is currently engaged in aseparate initiative to identify the strategicopportunities and challenges for bioinformatics in theEU. Bioinformatics is of central importance in crop

plant genomics research, linking genetic andphenotypic data and underpinning all of thetechnology platforms in plant sciences and plantbreeding. A broad challenge is facing the EU plantcommunity in generating and handling large datacollections and the growth of large-scale computingresources. The issues for plant sciences may best beaddressed as part of the broader resolution of thebioinformatics concern. Among the needs identifiedin the other, ongoing, EASAC work are :

· providing sustained support for informaticsinfrastructure and progressing collaborationbetween the European Commission and otherscience funding agencies like EMBL, ESF, MemberStates;

· identifying and resourcing cooperative mechanismsto build new cross-disciplinary research strengths,particularly IT-mathematics for computationalbiology, and modelling and simulation of complexsystems;

· database design and mining (intelligent analysis),including protein structure prediction and proteinfunctional analysis;

· database integration with common standard andinterfaces for crop genomes, and creating tools forcommunication between heterogeneous datasets,organising and disseminating information (openaccess).

(v) Transfer of knowledge to crop improvement:molecular breeding. Useful alleles are accumulatedduring crop selection. The molecular characterisationof these alleles has stimulated new approaches tomapping quantitative trait loci (QTL) and to theunderstanding of the natural variation in the genesconcerned. A limited number of QTL have beendescribed, but acceleration of their rate of discovery isexpected with the progress in genomics studies. Thiswill ultimately provide a science-based approach tocrop breeding (Morgante and Salamini, 2003).


2 The large-scale study of the full complement of secondary metabolites produced by a given species in all its tissues and growth stages.

Use of the technologies described above to understandinter- and intra-specific variation in plants, in order toeffect rational improvement in the productivity of cropspecies, will cover a wide range of problem-orientedgoals:

· identification of expressed genes controlling complexplant structures and understanding of their coordinatedinteractions;

· understanding of molecular mechanisms that regulateplant morphogenesis;

· identification of cellular processes underlying plantgrowth and accumulation of dry matter;

· description of molecular mechanisms by which plantscoordinate their response to external signals such aslight, water, ions, pathogens, insects;

· description of biosynthetic pathways of primary andsecondary metabolites;

· mode and routes by which storage materials (protein,starch, and oil) are stored in specific cellular bodies.

Rapid progress is being made in a number of the otherareas listed, such as the biology of pathogen resistance(non-self recognition and synthesis of defence proteins)(Dangl and Jones, 2001). This is a vital topic for Europe,given the impact that fungal diseases had on humansocieties. Examples are potato blight in Ireland in the1840s and downy mildew on vines in France in the 1870s.Surprisingly, after more than 150 years, late blight,Phytopthora infestans, is still the most devastatingpathogen in potato. High doses of pesticides are appliedto control this disease, with a current global expenditureof about 3 billion Euros. If developing countries had thefunds to apply the amounts of pesticides actually needed,this expenditure would increase to 9 billion Eurosannually. Developing novel late blight resistant varietieswould, therefore, have significant impact on productivityworldwide.

The state of the art and potential for progress can beillustrated further by the opportunities for studying theresponse to environmental stress. Understanding andimproving plant tolerance to abiotic stresses is of centralrelevance for the EU. The need to improve productivity inthe less hospitable regions, characterised by problems ofwater limitation and soil salinity and compounded by thepredicted impact of climate change (for example,declining mean rainfall in the Mediterranean regions andincreasing frequency of extreme climate events), willstimulate demands for plant varieties with improvedstress tolerance. Despite the prominence of yield losses inagriculture due to abiotic constraints, progress in

improving stress tolerance in crop plants has beenrelatively slow, primarily because of the polygenic natureof tolerance and the difficulty of reproducing stresssituations under standardised conditions.

What then are the new opportunities arising from plantgenomics applied to plant stress resistance?

(i) Exploitation of natural diversity. Plant evolution underdomestication has led to increased productivity ofcrop species, but at the same time has narrowed theirgenetic basis. Fortunately, wild relatives of crop plantsexhibit vast genetic diversity for adaptation tostressful environments such as frost, drought andhigh salt and metal, and also to the presence ofpathogens and pests.

Examples are salt resistance in tomato, droughttolerance in rice, aluminium tolerance in wheat andbarley (acid soils have high soluble aluminium contentthat limits cereal productivity) and resistance toPhytophtora infestans in potato. Also, the non-cropspecies Arabidopsis is an excellent model because ofits wide range of geographic isolates ('ecotypes'),which differ in various quantitative traits and can beused to identify genetic quality determinants andcomponents involved in the adaptation.

Exploration of the rich genetic diversity present inSolanaceous crops as tomato, potato, pepper,aubergine, petunia and tobacco and their wildrelatives provides a basis to enrich varieties with novelgenes that enhance their performance. This approachis both a complement and an alternative to the GMOstrategy for improving the quality and quantity offood output.

Genetic variation present within families is currentlythe basis for further crop improvement by breeders.The observation that research with related wildspecies can contribute to improvement of crop plantshas led to the establishment of large collections ofgenetic resources. In addition to providing usefulgenes, these collections can be used to understandquantitative traits of agricultural value includingresistance/tolerance to (a)biotic stresses, as well asgenes responsible for the many compoundsdetectable in individual plants that are related toquality aspects such as taste, health and food safety.

Recently the International crop Solanaceae GenomeProjects have been initiated with the aim ofsequencing the tomato genome as a reference forSolanaceous plants as well as plants from otherrelated taxa. Similar projects have been organised formaize, wheat, rice, Prunus, Medicago. Over thecoming ten years these projects will integrate diverse


7 Research priorities: definition of target genes and traits

disciplines and research groups from around theworld to create a coordinated network of knowledgeabout these plant families. This will lead to a deeperunderstanding of the genetic basis of plant diversityand how this diversity can be used to meet better theneeds of society in an environmentally friendly andsustainable manner.

(ii) Comparative genomics. Components of the stressresistance mechanisms are shared among differentplant species. Studies on model species, particularlyon Arabidopsis, have provided new insight into theperception of environmental signals and molecularmechanisms of stress responses, subsequentlyconfirmed in crops such as wheat. Comparativegenomics is thus important to reconstruct the stressresponse of crop plants. Building on the identificationof those genomic regions involved in stress toleranceand using the recently developed tools for genome-wide expression analysis, progress can now be madein linking the tolerant phenotype to the molecularresponse to stress.

(iii) Improvement of crop stress resistance. Marker-assisted selection, based on improved understandingand chromosomal location of the loci involved in

tolerance, will be a major tool in developing stresstolerant varieties of major crops. The feasibility of thisapproach will largely depend on the number ofgenome regions involved in the control of resistance,while for a new variety the goal will be theaccumulation of as many stress tolerance geneticfactors as possible. This research endeavour, while stillin its infancy, has a revolutionary potential.

Improved varieties could also be bred by planttransformation based on genes having a critical rolein the expression of the desired trait. Molecularengineering of metabolic pathways in plants (forexample, controlling synthesis of soluble sugars orlimiting the accumulation of reactive oxygen species)can lead to improved stress tolerance. Transgenicplants have been produced exhibiting tolerance towater deficiency and salt stress. In general thesemolecular engineering approaches have receivedconsiderable public attention and generated thecurrent European public controversy on GM foodwhich has not yet been solved. To reiterate - thepurpose of the present report is to show how cropplant genomics as a research area has a major role toplay in conventional plant breeding, withoutcommenting on the production of GM crops.


Biodiversity has often been considered as encompassingall variations in living organisms, from genes toecosystems, and, as such, difficult to quantify. Expressedin terms of species and populations, the current loss ofbiological diversity is a matter of great concern (Purvis andHector, 2000). Continuing growth of human populationswill induce further contraction of natural ecosystems infavour of cultivated land, in circumstances whereagricultural activities already generate seriousenvironmental concerns (European Environment Agency,2003). For example, in recent summers, the Baltic Sea hasbeen infested by toxic micro-algae and cyanobacteria as aresult of high fertiliser use in adjacent soils dedicated toagriculture. Furthermore, many of the natural ecosystemsof Europe – fragmented and disturbed – are nowconfined to marginal and poor soils, and because of thisthey are particularly sensitive to the effects of climatechange. It is estimated that flora and fauna are losingbiodiversity at a rate faster than those reported for massextinctions in previous geological eras, a loss potentiallyincompatible with evolutionary organisation of the life onthe planet.

Plant communities rich in biodiversity have superiorbiomass yield and better adaptation to the environmentthan communities of single species. Moreover, theirrichness in plant species promotes the diversity of otherorganisms, while providing a higher resistance to geneticinvasion. An integrated approach to preservingbiodiversity demands new methods to describe,characterise and measure organismal taxonomy. It alsodemands definition of the needs and modes ofbiodiversity conservation, based on the combination ofmolecular, morphological and physiological informationwithin the broader context of population biology(population genetics plus ecology).

(i) Molecular systematics and taxonomy. The classic unitfor measuring biological variation has been thespecies, a concept that has been corroborated byappropriate definitions based on reproductiveisolation and crossability. The molecular approach tospecies systematics, eg the evolution of wheat or thesearch for wild relatives of maize, based onmeasuring and comparing DNA sequences and oncharacterising and comparing genome regions, hasbrought new light in the understanding of theevolutionary history of plants. Nevertheless, it is stillnecessary to integrate the information obtained atthe level of gene, organism and population whenconsidering the evolution of a species. Commontechnology platforms underpin the modern study ofbiodiversity while also serving the search of targetgenes supporting crop traits as described above.

(ii) Applications in characterising biodiversity. Progress inunderstanding plant species and population diversity

is expected to generate information relevant to cropbreeding as follows.

· Plant molecular evolution. Plant kingdom diversitycan be revised at all hierarchical levels leading tonovel interpretations of the evolution of plantcharacteristics, such as flower and fruit formation.

· Plant and organ development. The variation in thestructure of homologous organs in plants that aretaxonomically different may lead to the discovery ofgeneral principles of organ origin and evolution;

· Speciation analysed by molecular markers. Tracingthe evolution of crop plants from annuality toperenniality (or vice versa), or monitoring theevolution of a trait contributing to colonisationability, should improve strategic thinking in plantbreeding.

· Evaluation and use of intraspecific variability.Molecular markers allow us to follow processes ofdomestication from wild populations and all keysteps enabling the transformation of plant breedingfrom an empirical activity to a science-basedprocess.

· Conservation of biodiversity. Molecularfingerprinting is becoming a standard tool inmanaging germ plasm collections for crops orendangered species. Programmes of biodiversityconservation need not only to maximise the numberof protected taxa but also to guarantee theconservation of the highest possible level of diversitywithin taxa. Molecular systematics and adoption ofappropriate molecular markers provide the scientificbasis for conservation management programs, bothex-situ and in-situ, possibly also for entireecosystems.

· Discovery of novel therapeutic agents. The searchfor biologically active compounds of plant origin isbased on the analysis of plant diversity. Genomicshelps in establishing relationships between thecollected taxa and also provides links between plantsystematics and the understanding of the pathwaysinvolved in the production of secondarymetabolites, supporting new cost-effective methodsto identify and screen candidates for new medicines.

(iii) Seed banks and their international role. In addition toadopting a coherent strategy for the use of thefunctional genomics technology platforms, it isessential to create internationally coordinatedfacilities and common standards for the curation andquality control of collections of seeds, explants andplants. Dedicated resources require the capacity to


8 Research priorities: definition of genomics targets for biodiversity

conserve and grow taxa requiring differentenvironmental conditions. An EU commitment tobiorepositories (plant samples plus their genomicdata) could become a central part of a global networkof Biological Resource Centres, as proposed by OECD(European Commission, 2001) and would beaugmented by the shared databases envisaged by theGlobal Biodiversity Informatics Facility(www.gbif.org). This GBIF is conceived as an inter-operable network of biodiversity databases andanalysis tools. Its value lies not just in thedissemination of data and in the sharing of besttechnical practice, but also as a route to cross-disciplinary training, to reinforcement of EU-US-other

international networks and to the generation of newcollaborative programmes.

It would also be relevant for the EU to evaluate theimpact of the Convention on Biodiversity on germplasm use in plant breeding. It is important to ensure,when trying to protect developing country interests inmedicinal plants and local crops, that theinternational collection of genetic resourcesnecessary for agricultural progress is not inhibited.The impact of the new International Treaty on PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture shouldalso be assessed, in this respect (Kennedy, 2003), as aresponsibility of the Commission.


As discussed in #4(iii) (new green industries), there is abroad range of other potential applications of cropbiosciences that may support and create new EUindustries. This chapter discusses additional examples inorder further to illustrate the danger of promisingapplications being curtailed, not only because ofinsufficient or uncoordinated research investment in plantscience, but also as unintended consequences of other EUpolicies.

The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has often beencriticised for constraining industry uptake of agriculturalraw materials, thus distorting market prices and supply ofcommodities. If the new green industries are to prosper, asecure and predictable framework for the supply of rawmaterials is essential. This supply should not depend ongovernment subsidy but is competitive on world markets.Recent CAP reforms have been beneficial in introducing'set-aside' regulations for arable crops, permitting non-food crops to be grown on this land and, thereby,stimulating the novel energy and industrial supply uses.We welcome this process of reform.

EU legislation also restricts the desirable use of renewableraw material in other ways. For example, the use ofnatural fibres as composite materials is undermined byrecycling quotas, as highlighted by the work of the UKGovernment-Industry Forum on non-food uses of crops(see below). In some cases, the scientific priority is formore R&D (although not necessarily in genomics) but inothers the priority is for the informed scientificcommunity to work together with policy-makers toexplain, to potential end-users, what is already achievablein novel applications. What is needed is a coherentstrategic viewpoint and supportive legislative framework,as described in this report, to encourage the majoropportunities for non-food uses of crops across the EU.This will require attention by multiple DGs and theEuropean Parliament and, possibly, might be addressed inthe first instance as a broader issue by the TechnologyPlatform (see chapter 12). The identification of yet moreopportunities will depend on continuing investment inplant sciences.

(i) Biopackaging. Globally, only about half thepackaging used in the world is derived fromrenewable materials. Increasing this proportionwould conserve resources and decrease the disposalof waste to landfill sites; but it is important to avoidincreased production costs and energy consumptionwhen using renewable materials.

Less than 0.1% of European polymer production iscurrently from biological materials (mainly starch).R&D is necessary to address why biomaterials have a

poor performance. Changes in the EU quota (forexample of potato starch) might be necessary tosupport market pull.

Environmental advantages will accrue if packagingwaste from industry and from domestic uses isidentified for composting where appropriate, ratherthan for disposal in landfill sites. Biomaterial colourcoding could be mandated and segregatedprocedures supported by incentives/tax penalties.

In addition to the R&D agenda for optimising starch-based and oil-based polymers, it is important toinitiate lifecycle economic comparisons ofconventional and bioplastics, for example in terms ofthe fossil fuel consumed during manufacture.

(ii) Wheat secondary products. In furthering the aim oftotal utilisation of major crops, various newapplications are foreseen for wheat – bioethanol,starch – and wheat-straw for paper pulp and forconstruction material and composites.

Industrial applications of starch range frompackaging to cosmetics, surfactants, adhesives andcoatings – generally, where significant industrial R&Din the fine chemical area exists and the opportunitiesare being exploited.

Wheat straw used as structural building blocks andinfill for walls offers low environmental impact andenergy consumption. But it is unfamiliar to theconstruction industry, consumers and regulatorsacross the EU, and is further hampered by lack of skillin using the material. What is needed is EU leadershipto raise awareness.

(iii) Composite materials. Natural fibres from hemp, flax,jute and plant leaves offer advantages over traditionalmaterials (glass and, to an extent, wood) in terms ofreduced weight and environmental sustainability.

Industry demand is led by the automotive sector,about 30 000 t (60% in Germany), estimated to growto 100 000 t by 2010 (100 million Euro market). Butthe End of Life Vehicle Directive, which sets recyclingtargets, may constrain market development.

To promote use of renewables, the cited Directiveshould be reviewed. Enhancing productivity andfunctional performance of crops also requires re-examination of CAP subsidy support and currentlegislative constraints on planting area, permittedvarieties and harvest date (to allow cultivation mostappropriate to local climate).


9 Policy constraints on novel applications: non-food use of crops

(i) Cost-benefit issues for choice of public investment inresearch. Policy-makers in both the Commission andMember State funding agencies must respond to theclaim (International Food Policy Research Institute,2001; International Service for Agricultural Research,2003) that too little is being invested in plantsciences. A slowdown – or reversal – in growth ofagricultural R&D over the past 20 years is a matter ofconcern because the under-investment gap isgrowing (International Service for AgriculturalResearch, 2003). We endorse the view that thereshould be diversity in types and sources of funding.There must be sustained and stable support tonurture long-term approaches (both to model speciesand to crops of EU relevance), together with shorter-term, responsive-mode, grants. However, we areconcerned about inefficiency when the culture of theresearch funders differs (for example, betweennational research councils and governmentdepartments). Competitive peer review ofinvestigator-initiated research proposals shouldrightly remain fundamental to project management,and a case should also be made for longer-termsupport to address interdisciplinary aspects and thelonger experimental cycle in crop systems.

Although many of the pleas for increased investmentin plant and crop science emphasise the potential foragricultural innovation, economic feasibility is seldomaddressed. Agriculture is an example of a fragmentedsector in which market forces generally fail when itcomes to the generation of new technologies. Theindividual private benefit is too small to constitute anincentive to invest the substantial capital required.The outputs of plant genomics research have classic'public good' characteristics – even though the near-term goal is innovation – and joint action/governmentintervention is needed to overcome the marketfailure.

(ii) Supporting private investment and meeting EUcompetitiveness goals. In addition to understandingthe economic costs and benefits of research, it isimportant to consider possibilities for incentivisingthe private sector and for optimising marketstructure. Broadly, the actions needed to increaseR&D investment and to attract and retain companieswithin the EU, include (International Service forAgricultural Research, 2003):

· support for technology development (investment inbasic science; training of researchers; improvingaccess to knowledge);

· promoting economy of scale (joint R&D projects;international collaboration);

· enhancing industry structure (anti-cartel legislationto discourage monopolies; patent systems tostimulate private investment);

· sharing best practice for R&D efficiency (structures,management and organisational effectiveness);

· optimising adoption rate (consideration of marketstructure);

· addressing risk and uncertainty (clear, science-based, regulatory measures to incorporate theprinciple of substantial equivalence for new plantvarieties and to relate to the public concerns for theenvironment; horizon scanning of futuredevelopments).

(iii) Education and training. Human resources are animportant part of the infrastructure needed if the EUis to strengthen its capability. The increasingrequirement for skilled researchers is not just ingenomic technologies, important though those are,but also in plant taxonomy, systematics, physiology,biology and quantitative methods. We recommendthat the EU consider undertaking an initiativecorresponding to the one introduced successfully bythe NSF in USA: targeted post-doctoral fellowships inplant science. There is a need for similar initiatives atthe PhD level based on longer training programmesincluding interdisciplinary rotations and joint trainingprogrammes across university and industry, andacross North–South collaborations.

It is particularly important to disseminate informaticstraining and resources: by programmes focusing onplant science; by identifying the needs for both young(basic user skills) and established scientists (mid-career training awards); and by organising workshopsto inform the research community on accessing toolsand databases.

More in generally, across the Member States, theremust be mutual acceptance of national trainingstandards, so as to facilitate exchange of youngscientists, with promotion of mobility (drawing onbest practice in Marie Curie Fellowships). There is alsoconsiderable scope for sharing best practice indistance learning and day release schemes fordelivering industrial and conversion course training,and in teaching plant breeding as an undergraduatediscipline. New university positions are needed atinterdisciplinary interfaces, and improved careerpathways and recognition for technical support staff.

(iv) Public-private relationships and knowledge transfer.Issues for public-private sector partnerships, as for


10 Providing the right conditions for crop plant genomics researchand its applications

education and training, are similar for crop plantgenomics, plant breeding and other areas of lifescience. Indeed, valuable lessons can be learnt frombest practice in other sectors: for example, the valueof multilateral partnership developed within the SNP(Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) Consortiumsupporting biomedicine. Plant science has alreadybenefited from pooling of public-private sectorgenomics information, in the case of the creation of arice genome draft sequence.

However, these particular developments of thepublic-private relationships in plant science are in partstimulated by the disappearance of governmentfunding of plant breeding research, both in the USAand EU (Knight, 2003). The example of the UK may beparticularly instructive: here privatisation of plantbreeding severed the emerging link betweenbreeders and molecular geneticists. At the same time,agribusiness has undergone major consolidation andrestructuring, leading to globalisation of prioritiesand focusing on added-value output traits in themajor cash crops such as maize and soybean. Thus, asdescribed, there are relative gaps in R&D invested infield crops and horticultural crops of importance tothe EU, particularly concerning input traits that aredesirable for a coherent EU strategy but have weakercommercial potential (for example, nutrient andwater use efficiency). As plant breeding becomesmore science-driven over the next two decades, theremust be renewed connections between crop plantgenomics research and breeding. This necessitatesmore 'public good' oriented plant breeding activities,since plant breeding is not very profitable but deliversgreat value to society. For example, current estimatessuggest that the UK wheat seed market is less than3% of the total farm gate value of wheat, so thatincreasing wheat yield has relatively little impact onthe profitability of seed companies. Public-fundedplant breeding efforts would also help to improvepublic confidence in the use of genomics research forcrop improvement (see #10 (vi) below); revitalisetraining efforts at the plant science/plant breedinginterface, and exert a proper control over privatesector.

The options for publicly funded plant breeding acrossEU Commission and Member States now need to beexplored, in terms of creating new centres or newnetworks. But the issue for knowledge sharing is notone only for the public-private sector interface.Within the public sector, there is need to do more atthe EU level to share and incorporate best practicerelating to the balance of effort in universities,research institutes and applied researchorganisations. There is an important mission-drivenrole for the institutes to provide dedicatedinfrastructure and long-term coherence to cropbreeding research. Universities supply acomplementary function in research, teaching and

training, and access to a wide range of disciplines.Crop scientists are less well connected, bycomparison with the Arabidopsis researchcommunity, and it is thus important to promoteconnectivity across research bodies.

(v) Intellectual property rights. While the need for publicinvestment in plant genomics and plant breedingresearch is clear, the magnitude of resources requiredmakes private sector participation essential. Theprivate sector can be induced to invest in crop plantgenomics research only if to some degree it canappropriate the results of its research.

The application of intellectual property rights (IPR) toplant varieties has been a relatively recentphenomenon. Plant variety protection (PVP) systemsthat have emerged over the last three decades allownew plant varieties to be protected on the basis ofmorphological distinctness, uniformity and stability intime. Given the sequential and cumulative nature ofinnovation in plant breeding, PVP systems generallyallowed for researchers’ exemption, so that a varietycan be used as initial source of variation in the follow-on development of new varieties, without thepermission of the titleholder. This does significantlyreduce the appropriability of returns from a plantvariety innovation and, consequently, PVP has beenconsidered a relatively weak IPR measure. Efforts havebeen made to strengthen PVP to allow breeders tosecure a larger share of the returns from theirinnovation. In the USA, Japan and Australia it is nowpossible to obtain utility patents for plant varieties.This development has, however, been perceived asdamaging to public plant breeding programmes.

Protection of genomic information per se has alsobeen controversial. During the early phase oftechnology development, numerous gene sequenceswere patented with excessively broad claims (andsome feared an undermining of the traditionaldistinction between an invention and the discovery ofa principle of nature), Conversely, Arabidopsis patentclaims extended only to Brassicas, although extrawork might have enabled expansion of claims toother crops. Patent authorities are now applyingmore stringent examination of claims for function,novelty and inventive efforts.

The rise in patenting of genomic information hasbeen particularly marked in the US and Japan andcovers gene sequences, tools and technologies. It hasbeen estimated that US entities (companies, researchinstitutes, universities) own 90% of USagrobiotechnology patents and more than 50% ofEuropean patents (Kalaitzandonakes, 2000).

Patent policy can have many impacts: it providesincentives to innovate and disclose new knowledge,but a proliferation of patents and licences may also


cause increasing difficulties for start-up companiesand public institutions to participate in leadinginnovation (International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, 2001). It should also be admitted that someuniversities have been weak in their negotiations withcompanies, when granting exclusivity withoutguarantee that the patent will be effectively worked.If ownership of IPR is diffuse and uncertain, multi-lateral negotiation becomes difficult and theinvention is under-exploited because of the high costsof the access. The Royal Society (UK) has recentlyemphasised that if patents are too broad in scope,they block other researchers from carrying out relatedwork, and the Society recommends that publicauthorities should make explicit to patent offices theirduty to examine patent applications appropriatelyrather than to strive to grant as many patents aspossible (The Royal Society, 2003).

It has been proposed (Knight, 2003) that the powerof conventional plant breeding will be boosted bymarrying it to genomics and other molecular genetictechnologies only if there is a concerted effort tobreak at least in part the current proprietary approachto IPR. This concept of open access to genomicinformation was seen as particularly applicable to USR&D efforts (Knight, 2003), but equivalent issues canbe raised for the EU.

We recommend that these issues continue to bereviewed as part of the European Commissionwatching brief on biotechnology patenting andimpact analysis of the current Biopatenting Directive.An additional access issue exists: plant breeders needto have access to a comprehensive and wide pool ofgenetic diversity, but are currently inhibited by theSeeds Directive. This risks reducing the number ofvegetable and fruit cultivars remaining in cultivation

because registration of a cultivar under the Directiveis costly, and there is little incentive to register rarer,less commercial cultivars.

(vi) Building public trust. There has been concern –shared by scientists, industry and public policy makers– that the controversy over GM crops will hold backadvances in other areas of plant genetics andgenomics including applications that can improveconventional plant breeding. In order to capitalise onexpected research advances in plant science, it isessential to progress public engagement on bothscientific and socio-economic issues across a broadfront: plant genomics and genetics, plant breeding,food production, food security, novel applications(European Commission, 2003). For example, it ispoorly appreciated that use of genomics research as atool in 'fast-track' breeding could increase and notdecrease genetic diversity. While advances in plantgenomics research open up applications for bothconventional agriculture and GM crops, this reporthas concentrated on the former. It is important for thepublic to recognise the difference between theapproaches exemplified in this report andGMO/transgenic approaches.

We recommend that the issues for plant sciencecontinue to be considered as a priority for theEuropean Commission initiative Science and Society.However, while trust is essential to the success of anyrelationship (including those key interfaces identifiedby EURAGRI), it can be argued (O’Neill, 2002) that therecent culture of accountability, intended to increasetrust, in fact does the opposite, through excessivebureaucracy and contradictory or unrepresentativetargets. What is required, instead, is bettergovernance without unnecessary centralised micro-management.


11 The global policy domain

The strategic issues for EU capability in plant science andcrop breeding must be considered within the context ofglobal policy developments. According to the 'positivereform agenda' (OECD 2003), encompassing tradeliberalisation, the Uruguay Round, and promotion ofenvironmental sustainability, there will be an increasingpressure to reduce forms of agriculture support thatdistort markets or require trade protection. The challengeis to find ways for agriculture efficiently and profitably toproduce sufficient and safe food (and non-food crops),without harming the environment and degrading naturalresources.

Traditionally, CAP provided substantial production-linkedsupport, with mixed effects on environmental quality. Thereform of agriculture policies and trade liberalisation hasstarted to alter the signals to EU farmers – and thesechanging policies can capitalise on the research advancesoutlined above, if a coherent innovation strategy acrossthe EU is implemented. However, the immediateinfluence of CAP is likely to lead to an intensification offarming practices in the accession countries, unless theEU rapidly prioritises sustainable farming (EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 2003). Moreover, the cohesivepolicy objectives must extend far beyond research andagriculture, for example to encompass energy, chemicalsand recycling policies in the context of novel applicationsfor non-food crops.

Some scientists perceive a substantial part of thejustification for investment in crop plant genomicsresearch to be the potential benefits that might accrue fordeveloping countries. This report makes clear that cropplant genomics research will be of direct relevance andbenefit to EU agriculture. But it is also important for theEU to consider the potential of research for developingcountries (European Commission, 2002a), especially withregard to crops that may not be of interest to the privatesector. However, in examining the benefits for developingcountries, the heterogeneity of these countries, in termsof their research capacity, needs to be acknowledged.

Byerlee and Fischer (2002) propose a typology of nationalagricultural research systems (NARS) that classifiesdeveloping countries in one of three groups. Type 1 NARSinclude countries such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil andSouth Africa, with strong capacity in molecular biology, that can develop the new tools for their specific needs.

Type 2 NARS only have the capacity to apply moleculartools developed elsewhere, while a large number ofcountries (Type 3) have no capacity in molecular biologyand very fragile capacities in plant breeding.

EU crop plant genomics research would benefit the threecategories of countries in different ways. Type 3 NARS willbenefit from EU research only if this research producesplant varieties that can be directly introduced – so thebenefits will materialise only if the EU deliberatelyprioritises this objective. For example, the EU mightchampion applications for improving 'orphan' crops suchas cassava and tuberous legume species of SouthAmerica. By contrast, Type 1 and 2 NARS are likely tobenefit from EU plant genomics research through the useof newly developed tools. This will depend on the level ofaccess to these tools that the regulatory environment willpermit. The challenge for the EU is to consider developingcountries as partners in technology generation/transfer(European Commission, 2003) and to promote access togenomic information and research tools, even as theybecome increasingly subject to private ownership andcontrol within a strengthened and harmonised regulatoryregimen.

It is important to learn from best practice in currentpartnerships using EU funding – for example, the projectswith Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines that havepromoted the molecular linkage maps for coconut and oilpalm, and from initiatives in training (for example, theUniversity of Ghent Institute of Plant Biotechnology forDeveloping Countries). The EU should consider thepotential for global collaborative research initiativesexemplified by the recent donation of the GatesFoundation in support of innovation in traditional plantbreeding methods (HarvestPlus with IFPRI – especiallywheat, rice, cassava, legumes, maize; enrichment targetsfor vitamin A, iron and zinc). We also endorse the generalpoints made by the recent report from the InterAcademyCouncil (Inventing a Better Future, 2004), whichemphasises both the importance of building capacity inscience and technology in agriculture and the importanceof coordinating international efforts. This InterAcademyCouncil report is recommended as a comprehensivediscussion of the broad approaches needed to buildcapacity and as an introduction to the practicalopportunities available to achieve those ends.


When considering how crop plant sciences can contributeto EU competitiveness and sustainability, many drivers inaddition to science push have to be taken on board:public expectations, changing demographics, regulatorydevelopments, litigation, new competitor countries,market structure. But sound science must be at the heartof policy-making.

We greatly welcome the Plant Genomics TechnologyPlatform announced at the Heads of State EuropeanCouncil meeting in 2003. We support the aims of thePlatform in mobilising all stakeholders (researchers andfunders, farmers, industry, NGOs) to identify theopportunities for Europe and prepare the ground forpolitical acceptability by showing how this technologycan and will affect our futures. We hope that our reportwill help to inform and take forward this Platform – notjust at the EU level but also at EU Member State level, andin collaboration with other international partners. Weurge the Platform to consolidate new thinking across abroad front:

· building on ERANet, with immediate effect onFramework Programme 6 funding choices and seedingideas for Framework Programme 7;

· developing the strategic options for the private sector;

· confirming the priorities for societal needs: food quality,environment (and remediation), biodiversity, developingcountries assistance, novel applications;

· facing key challenges: informing consumer views,appropriate science-based regulation of markets,coordinating R&D initiatives.

EASAC should be involved in these continuing efforts.

One of the issues for the Platform and related efforts ishow success should be measured. Many differentperformance criteria are available and a portfolioapproach to measuring outputs, outcomes and impact isrecommended: publications, patents, citations; trainedstaff and their mobility; development of newtechnologies, tools and standards; uptake of research bycompanies; reduction to practice in plant breeding; valuecreation from the new applications; rural income,infrastructure, employment and economic development;contribution to balance of trade.

In publishing this report, EASAC confirms that there is amajor opportunity for the EU to generate new knowledgeon crop plants, to apply that knowledge to plant breedingand, thereby, to contribute to competitiveness and othersocietal goals. The EU will succeed in this strengthening ofits capability only if it is committed to identifying thehighest priorities for excellent research, what is feasibleand what are the best pathways with which to pursuethose priorities. Crop biology and crop improvementshould be the overarching themes, with twin goals for thereduction to practice: translating from genomics researchon model plants to crops, and from crop science to plantbreeding. To achieve this, the EU will need a coherentstrategy for generating new knowledge, bringingtogether the different research communities, sharing bestpractice and clarifying what added value can be deliveredat the European level.

In this report, we have discussed some specific researchpriorities: for genes and traits, technology and tools, andfor addressing societal needs and market opportunities. Itis important to take a long-term perspective in order tomake the case for the emerging research agenda, but alsoto be aware of likely new competitor countries. We havealso highlighted the importance of addressing the widerframework that is necessary for EU innovation: building inthe necessary elements for human resources, publicengagement, regulatory regimes, technologyassessment, intellectual property protection and cost-benefit analyses.

We have focused on major crops. There is more to bedone to identify research priorities and policy issues forother areas, for example pasture and forest trees, wherethere may be more variability between Member States.What we have also not attempted here is the detailedanalysis necessary to quantify R&D investmentrequirements and the potential impact oncompetitiveness, because we do not wish to pre-empteither the thorough ERANet review of Member Stateactivities and opportunities for alignment or the collectivedebate across all stakeholder groups that will drive theprogress of Technology Platforms. But, as a first step, byidentifying research priorities and applications across abroad front, EASAC intends that the present report willhelp to stimulate ongoing discussion across Europe.


12 Developing the strategic framework

Annex 1 References

Byerlee, D. and Fischer, K. (2002). Accessing modernscience: Policy and institutional options for agriculturalbiotechnology in developing countries, WorldDevelopment 30, 931-948

Chemical Industries Association (2003). Trends andresearch priorities for the chemical industry

Dangl, J.L. and Jones, J.D.G. (2001). Plant pathogens andintegrated defence responses to infection, Nature 411,826-833

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)(2002). Annual report of the Government-Industry Forumon non-food uses of crops

ERANet (2003). European research area plant genomics

European Commission (2001). EC-US workshop onresearch infrastructures: new research tools for a lifesciences decade

European Commission (2002a). Life sciences andbiotechnology: a strategy for Europe

European Commission (2002b). EURAGRI conference:science for society, science with society

European Commission (2003). Towards sustainableagriculture for developing countries

European Commission, Agriculture DG (2003). Prospectsfor agricultural markets in the European Union 2003-2010

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2003).Review of GMOs under research and development and inthe pipeline in Europe

European Environment Agency (2003). Europe’senvironment: the third assessment

InterAcademy Council (2004) Inventing a Better Future. Astrategy for building worldwide capacities in science andtechnology

International Food Policy Research Institute (2001).Agricultural science and technology indicators initiative:slow magic – agricultural R&D a century after Mendel

International Service for Agricultural Research (2003).Briefing paper 60: under-investment in agriculturalresearch and development revisited

Joint Committee of the Italian National Academies of theLincei and of the Sciences (2003). Plant biotechnologyand GM varieties

Kalaitzandonakes, N.G. (2000). Agrobiotechnology andcompetitiveness, American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 82, 1224-1233

Kennedy, D. (2003). Agriculture and the developingworld, Science 302, 357

Knight, J. (2003). A dying breed, Nature 421, 568-570

Morgante, M. and Salamini F. (2003). From plantgenomics to breeding practice, Current Opinion inBiotechnology 14: 214-219

National Science Foundation (2003). National PlantGenome Initiative Progress Report(www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/npgi2003/executive.htm)

OECD (2003). Policy brief: agricultural policies in OECDcountries: a positive reform agenda

O’Neill, O (2002). Reith Lectures 2002: A question of trust(www.bbc.co.uk)

Porceddu, E. (1999). Agricultural production and naturalresources, GT Scarascia Mugnozza et al (Eds), Geneticsand breeding for quality and resistance, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, The Netherlands, 377-396

Purvis, A. and Hector, A. (2000). Getting the measure ofbiodiversity, Nature 405, 212-219

Rokas, A., Williams, B.L., King, N. and Carroll, S.B. 2003.Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence inmolecular phylogenies. Nature 425: 798-804

Ronchi, E (2003). New technologies for foods andnutraceuticals: emerging trends and regulatory issues, inOECD Conference on changing dimensions of the foodeconomy: exploring the policy issues (The Hague,February 2003)

The Royal Society (2003). Keeping science open: theeffects of intellectual property policy on the conduct ofscience

Royal Society of Edinburgh (2003). Evidence submitted tothe EASAC Working Group on crop plant genomics

US-EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research (2001).Forecasting the future of biotechnology, National ScienceFoundation



Annex 2 Working Group

Professor Gian Tommaso Scarascia-Mugnozza, National Academy of SciencesChairman Rome, ItalyGenetics, Plant breeding

Professor Enrico Porceddu, Scientific Secretary Department of Agrobiology and AgrochemistryGenetics, Plant genetic resources University of Tuscia

Viterbo, Italy

Professor Friedrich Graf Institute of Systematic TheologySystematic theology and ethics University of Munich

Munich, Germany

Dr Xavier Irz Department of Agricultural and Food EconomicsAgricultural economics University of Reading

Reading, UK

Professor Regine Kahmann Max-Planck-Institut für terrestrische MikrobiologieMolecular phytopathology Marburg, Germany

Dr Tony Kavanagh Department of GeneticsPlant genomics Trinity College

Dublin, Eire

Professor Chris Lamb John Innes CentrePlant molecular biology Norwich, UK

Dr Marjori Ann Matzke Institute of Molecular BiologyEpigenetics, genome evolution Austrian Academy of Sciences

Vienna, Austria

Professor Marc van Montagu Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing CountriesGene transfer University of Gent

Gent, Belgium

Professor Lars Rask Department of Medical Biochemistry and MicrobiologyMedical biochemistry Uppsala University

Upsala, Sweden

Professor Francesco Salamini Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding ResearchGenetics, Plant breeding Köln, Germany

Dr Chittur Srinivasan Department of Agricultural and Food EconomicsAgricultural economics University of Reading

Reading, UK

Professor Willem Stiekema Department of Plant SciencesGenomics, Bioinformatics Wageningen University

Wageningen, The Netherlands

Dr Robin Fears Secretary, Biotechnology Strategy Group, EASACSecretary The Royal Society

6 Carlton House TerraceLondon, UK

genomics and crop plant science in europe · genomics research by developing a coordinated strategy...

Documents