Hodges, Matt

Kent Academic Repository

Kent Academic RepositoryFull text document (pdf)Copyright & reuseContent in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated allcontent is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of researchThe version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.EnquiriesFor any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: researchsupport@kent.ac.ukIf you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.htmlCitation for published versionHodges, Matt  (2009) The Sideshadows of Apomixis Technology Development: AnthropologicalPerspectives.    In: CGIAR Alliance Deputy Executive / Private Sector Committee Workshopon ‘Enhancing Research Productivity through Public Private Partnerships, at Session ‘IdentifyingBest Practice for Productive Partnerships’, 11-13 November 2009, Syngenta Foundation fo SustainableDOILink to record in KARhttp://kar.kent.ac.uk/45180/Document VersionOtherIdentifying Best Practice for Productive PartnershipsApomixis ConsortiumCharacterization of the Functional Components required for Apomixis in MaizeDr. Matt HodgesOverview of PresentationI. Context for the Consortium: the Apomixis research fieldII. The Consortium: History, Organizational Mechanisms, and GoalsIII. Discussion: Dynamics of Core ProcessesIV. Analysis: Benefits and ValueI. The Significance of Apomixis? 1) What is Apomixis? µ$SRPL[LV¶LVasexual reproduction through seeds IRXQGLQPDQ\µZLOG¶SODQWVSHFLHVHJGDQGHOLRQJUDVVHV¾ It is uncommon among crop plants (except tropical forages, Citrus etc)z Apomicts produce seed which contains a copy of the maternal genome¾ 5HVHDUFKHUVDLPWRKDUQHVVWKLVDELOLW\µFORQLQJ¶"IRUDJULFXOWXUH2) Why? µ$SRPL[LV7HFKQRORJ\¶ZRXOGWKHRUHWLFDOO\HQDEOHEUHHGHUVWRfix hybrid vigor & stablisise hybrid genomes¾ This may benefit seed companies (e.g. reduced costs, diversify resources); and commercial and resource-poor farmers (e.g. recycle hybrid seed, fix cultivars for niche microclimates and specific uses)3) What is the Timeline? Variable, contingent on scientific viewpoint and VXVWDLQHGLQYHVWPHQWµIURQWLHUUHVHDUFK¶¾ In late 1990s, optimistic short-term goal of fully apomictic crop was predicated on dominance of interspecific hybridisation programmes¾ Currently viewed as mid-to-long term goal, predicated on molecular bio, with gradual emergence of technological capability within 20 years,7KH$SRPL[LV5HVHDUFK)LHOG«1) The Apomixis research field is fragmented ¾ $ORRVHO\LQWHJUDWHGVXUSULVLQJO\µVPDOO¶QHWZRUNFUHVHDUFKHUV¾ With a range of foci and model systems¾ With different approaches to technology devt., i.e. molecular biology in various forms, but increasingly few integrating plant breeding2) Research has a diverse funding base¾ Research is funded by the public sector, private sector, & PPPs3) 7KHµ0ROHFXODU7XUQ¶¾ The major transformation that has occurred over the last 10 years is the µmolecular turn¶¾ i.e. the emergence of a molecular biology hegemony (shift from breeding to lab), with implications for technology models, stakeholders & end users¾ Coinciding with private sector investment (late 1990s), related debates concerning IPR and apomixis e.g. Bellagio Declaration on necessity of enabling access to technology by resource-poor¾ 7KHKLVWRULFDOFRQWH[WIRUWKHHPHUJHQFHDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIWKLV333«II. Apomixis Consortium (1999-)1) During 1990s, a leading team in Apomixis research was at CIMMYT¾ French scientists based at CIMMYT, but some employed by IRD µ5HVHDUFK,QVWLWXWHIRU'HYHORSPHQW¶Tripsacum Program (1989-94); CIMMYT Apomixis Project (1994-99)2) The team was trying to wide-FURVVPDL]HZLWKDZLOGDSRPLFWLFµUHODWLYH¶Tripsacum (gamagrass)¾ The team used the dominant technology in Apomixis research during this time: introgression, aided by lab-based molecular technology¾ Goal was a non-*0µ$SRPL[LV7HFKQRORJ\¶LHfacultative apomictic maize ZKLFKZRXOGRFFDVLRQDOO\µVZLWFK¶WRVH[XDOUHSURGXFWLRQpreserving genetic diversity (modelled on wild populations)¾ Intended for resource-poor; resistant to IP; but may be uncontrollable3) During mid-1990s they thought they were close to success¾ Patent application filed, 1997¾ Approched by Monsanto wanting exclusivity, reached agreement with Pioneer, Limagrain, Novartis (now part of Syngenta); the outcome was the µ$SRPL[LV&RQVRUWLXP¶TripsacumMaizeThe Apomixis Consortium (2009)(post-2004)II. Apomixis Consortium: Co-Innovation1) What is the contributory structure of the Consortium?¾ Decided on an annual basis, linked to 4-year agreement and plan?2) Who provides what: Private Sector¾ Cash support is provided by the Private Sector companies¾ Each company contributes technologies & services (e.g. genetic materials for maize transformation, databases, further details undisclosed)3) Who provides what: Public Sector¾ IRD (and ANU post-2004) contribute by allocating two research scientist positions apiece to the project ¾ CIMMYT has previously contributed research scientist position (in Mexico then ANU), support staff and costs for in-kind activities in Mexico z Its in-kind contribution was phased out in 2008 due to strategic re-emphasis of XQUHVWULFWHGIXQGVDQGUHODWHGGLVFUHSDQF\EHWZHHQ&,00<7¶VIRFXVRQDSSOLHGSODQWEUHHGLQJDQGFURSLPSURYHPHQWDQG333¶VVWUDWHJLFUHVHDUFKDJHQGD¾ CIMMYT was committed to returning to in-kind contribution should research refocus on pre-breeding but as this is unlikely in phase 3, has withdrawn4) Analysis: &RQWULEXWLRQVEDVHGRQDµFR-LQQRYDWLRQ¶VWUXFWXUHAllocation of Member Financing: Phase One (2000-2004)2200017500050000 44000 4200010000600004000017000015900071700053800058500020000 45000012600000%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Values = $; Source = CIMMYT WebsiteIRD, France (ARI) INIFAP, Mexico (NARS) Private Sector Consortium CIMMYTII. Apomixis Consortium: Management 1) What is the management structure of the Consortium? ¾ 3URMHFWDFWLYLWLHVDUHPDQDJHGE\DQ³2YHUVLJKW&RPPLWWHH´¾ This includes all PIs from the each of the public institutions ¾ And one manager (scientist?) from each of the private sector partners2) How does this work in practice?¾ Each member is responsible for day-to-day coordination of their portion of the agreed activities that are conducted at their facilities¾ Work-plans are collectively reviewed, revised and approved on a semi-annual basis ¾ Based on collective assessment of outputs from previous six months3) Analysis: Effectiveness also related to authority of members within their institutions and the support of institutions for members; i.e. is Private Sector policy of placing scientists in managerial positions matched by Public Sectorz OC and its temporal structure is key to management of dynamic, emergent co-innovation process informed by frontier researchOversight CommitteeComposition: Chair, Public Sector PIs,µ0DQDJHU¶IURPHDFK3ULYDWH6HFWRU3DUWQHUIRD (France, ARI) Pioneer Hi-BredCIMMYT LimagrainAustralian National University SyngentaII. Apomixis Consortium: IPR1) How has IPR been managed? In original agreement, a two-tier licence¾ 3UHPLVHIRU&,00<7¶VHQWU\DV&,00<7$SRPL[LV3URMHFWZDVIRFXVHGon the resource-SRRUµ(TXLW\LQ$FFHVVWR+\EULG9LJRUIRU5HVRXUFH-3RRU¶DQGVFLHQWLVWVZHUHVLJQDWRULHVWR%HOODJLR'HFODUDWLRQ¾ Farmers earning under $5,000 p.a. would receive Apomixis Technology IUHHZKLFKZDVIHDVLEOHJLYHQWKHJRDOZDVµQDWXUDO¶DSRPLFWLFPDL]H2) Subsequent developments? All partners have contributed significant amounts of in-house legal time to IP management issues¾ Under current agreement, market segmentation model is maintained¾ Private Sect has non-exclusive licence to deploy outputs in target markets¾ CIMMYT & IRD deliver to resource-poor farmers based on means test3) Analysis: Stakeholders present for all potential end-users (importance of CIMMYT membership), but dependent on type of technology produced¾ & are there consequences for freedom-to-operate if product integrates previously patented technology? (wider implications for co-innovation)III. Discussion: Dynamics of Core ProcessesKey Factors:z Co-Innovation: 7KH$SRPL[LV&RQVRUWLXPLVD333IRXQGHGRQµ&R-,QQRYDWLRQ¶ZKHUHHDFKSDUWQHUDFWLYHO\SDUWLFLSDWHVLQWKHSURFHVVRIplanning, executing, and reviewing research¾ And each partner contributes skills and resources that enable that process2) µ)URQWLHU5HVHDUFK¶ The dynamics of co-innovation are structured by the IRFXVRIWKH333RQµIURQWLHU¶UHVHDUFK¾ i.e. joint research with uncertain but very beneficial outcomes ± potentially a distinct trajectory from co-innovation but practically integratedz What degree of uncertainty? Russian plant breeders and scientists first grasped the potential of apomixis for agriculture in the 1930s¾ No significant progress until 1980s; still real uncertainty about when and how an apomictic technology can be delivered; but total confidence in its potential value3) Dynamics: The interaction of managerial, organizational, contributory, and IPR structures pivots around interaction between the co-innovation / IURQWLHUUHVHDUFKSDUDGLJPV«6HHILJXUHVRQIROORZLQJVOLGHVCo-Innovation Processes Evolving, EmergentCo-Innovation ProcessesEvolving, EmergentPioneer Hi-Bred, Limagrain, SyngentaResearch WorkstreamsOversight Committee6-monthly meetingPeriodic Management of Co-Innovation ProcessesCIMMYT, IRD (France), ANUOversight Committee6-monthly meetingMembers: Public Sector PIs, Private Sector ManagersTasks: Outputs Collectively Assessed,Workplans Reviewed, Revised, ApprovedINTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDIZATIONTechnology: µ1DWXUDO¶)DFXOWDWLYH$SRPLFWLF0DL]HEnd Users: Resource poor?Timeline: Short-term, then uncertain     IPR: Open Source?Eco-Risk: Uncontrollable?  Investment Risk: Low, then high?DE NOVO CASSETTE Technology: GM Apomictic CropEnd Users: Diverse, contingent on tool design & costTimeline: 20 years? Contingent on level of investment  IPR: Two-tier licence     Eco-Risk: Could be controlled?Investment Risk: Value in basic science e.g. endosperm devt. 2000 2004 2009Interspecific Hybridisation(suspended in 2004)PHASE 1: 2000-2004Chief Location: MexicoContributions: BalancedHigh Co-dependency Internal Structure ofCo-Innovation Processes,with Key Dates2008PHASE 2: 2004-2009Location: TransnationalContributions: UnequalLow Co-dependency?O.C.6-Month ReviewsO.C.6-Month ReviewsO.C.6-Month Reviews4-YearProject Deadline4-YearProject DeadlineCIMMYT phases out in-kind contributionsCo-Innovation Process Evolving, EmergentCo-Innovation Process Evolving, EmergentStrategic ResearchIV. Analysis: Benefits & Value1) Dynamic temporal structure enables on-going review and management of evolving and emergent research trajectories2) Co-innovation enables pooling of resources from leading stakeholders in different fields, and development and maintenance of rich project heritage3) ,QIURQWLHUUHVHDUFK333HQDEOHVSDUWQHUVWRZRUNWRJHWKHULQµSUH-FRPSHWLWLYH¶mode, reducing individual exposure to risk¾ :LWKSURYLVLRQIRUµFRPSHWLWLYH¶PRGHZKHQEUHDNWKURXJKVRFFXUWKURXJK,35HWF4) Strategic research reduces exposure via progress on valued topics e.g. endosperm devt. ± and contributions to the public good via research publications4) Social Value: Diverse stakeholders cater for range of potential end-users5) Apomixis technology might develop piecemeal: is PPP well-positioned?¾ Different components of apomixis might gradually be incorporated into pre-breeding and product output (view of leading experts in field)¾ In this regard, strategic research workstream is of future value¾ Conclusion: Structure of co-innovation model for frontier research is robust?IV. Analysis: Is the Model Robust?1) Policy consensus: effective PPPs are central to future advances in agricultural biotechnology ¾ Richards (2004) & others qualify this statement, acknowledging centrality of PPP PRGHOZKLOHFODLPLQJµDJUR-WHFKQRORJLFDOPRQRFXOWXUHV¶FDQVRPHWLPHVUHVWULFWinnovation; impede democratic impact of new biotech ¾ Advocating attention to possibilities for diversification and competition between different approaches, both research paradigms and research infrastructures2) How does this play out for Apomixis research? ¾ µ0ROHFXODU7XUQ¶FUHDWHGDODE-based monoculture?¾ %XW«DUHWHFKQRORJLFDOµKHWHURFXOWXUHV¶QHHGHGWRUHDOLVHDQµ$SRPL[LV7HFKQRORJ\¶"6RPHVFLHQWLVWVEHOLHYHWKDWde novo model will not deliver ¾ & agro-technological diversification (inc. introgression) is the way forward3) The Consortium: Key Shifts¾ +HWHURFXOWXUHRIILHOG	ODEUHVHDUFKEHFDPHDPRQRFXOWXUHRIODEUHVHDUFK«¾ Strategic research is now focused on GM solution? What form might technology take for resource-poor?¾ Scientific challenges of frontier research and strategic research decisions have weakened co-GHSHQGHQF\LQ333«&,00<7ZLWKGUDZVIV. Analysis: the Wider View?1) Heterocultures, or Monocultures?¾ In Apomixis PPPs / frontier research, there is a strong case for sustaining research flexibility to enable exploration and anticipate the emergent and XQNQRZQ«WKLVPD\EHPDQLIHVWHGDVDWUDQVLHQWµPRQRFXOWXUH¶"¾ %XWUHFRJQLWLRQRIWKHYDOXHRIDUHVHDUFKµKHWHURFXOWXUH¶IRUVXVWDLQLQJDpartnership with a capacity to deliver for diverse end-users is also of significance2) Need for Sustained Long-term Investment¾ Sustained, intensified long-term investment needed to enable innovation in Apomixis / frontier research¾ This will build capacity, increase the scope of the research field¾ But conflicts with short-WHUPIXQGLQJDJHQGDV«

The Sideshadows of Apomixis Technology Development: Anthropological Perspectives

http://kar.kent.ac.uk/45180/1/5.2%20Matthew%20Hodges%20-%20Apomixis%20Consortium%20Master.pdf

The Sideshadows of Apomixis Technology Development: Anthropological Perspectives

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kent Academic Repository