Agricultural Biotechnology's Complementary Intellectual Assets

We formulate and test a hypothesis to explain the dramatic restructuring experienced recently by the plant breeding and seed industry. The reorganization can be explained in part by the desire to exploit complementarities between intellectual assets needed to create genetically modified organisms. This hypothesis is tested using data on agricultural biotechnology patents, notices for field tests of genetically modified organisms, and firm characteristics. The presence of complementarities is identified with a positive covariance in the unexplained variation of asset holdings. Results indicate that coordination of complementary assets have increased under the consolidation of the industry

2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

In March 2021, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by four families (Aliusviridae, Crepuscuviridae, Myriaviridae, and Natareviridae), three subfamilies (Alpharhabdovirinae, Betarhabdovirinae, and Gammarhabdovirinae), 42 genera, and 200 species. Thirty-nine species were renamed and/or moved and seven species were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV

The Future of Agricultural Research

We enthusiastically support Philip H. Abelson’s call for substantially increased funding for basic agricultural research (Editorial, 28 Aug., p. 1187). However, he neglects the government’s critical role as gatekeeper; some federal regulatory policies are serious impediments to progress in the agricultural sciences. A subsequent editorial by Charles Arntzen, “Regulation of transgenic plants’ (4 Sept., p 1327), points out that research on genetically engineered plants is now subject to delays and extensive assessments that result from perceptions of public concern and not from scientific evidence of risk. when government’s research and regulatory policies conflict, the public loses twice-their investment in the U.S. research enterprise is thwarted, and they pick up the tab for unnecessary regulatory reviews (1). Twenty years after publicly funded research gave us the tools for recombinant DNA research, the time has come for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency to write regulations about products rather than the research methods used to create them (2). Governmental oversight is essential to protect human and environmental health, but agencies should follow the lead of the Food and Drug Administration in crafting reasonable, unambiguous policies (3) that focus on identifiable product risks and not on the researcher’s bench. A recent USDA proposal (4) is a positive step