By ANDREW POLLACK New York Times May 15, 2001
Dr. William Folk, a professor at the University of Missouri, wants to genetically engineer soybeans to improve their nutritional value. But he faces more than scientific hurdles. He and Monsanto never agreed on how he might use a patented technique for inserting genes into the beans.
"These procedures that have by and large been most useful are now inaccessible," Dr. Folk said.
Dr. Folk is feeling the effects of a major change engulfing agricultural research. Once the realm of public institutions like land-grant colleges, it is increasingly being controlled by private companies.
This fundamental shift alarms some farming experts, who point out that the public research system trained thousands of farmers over the decades and vastly improved farm output both in the United States and overseas.
Now, these critics say, patent restrictions are choking the free exchange of seeds and technology that nourished the public system.
Research on potential crop improvements has been delayed or abandoned. And in the quest for profits, crop development for poor countries could be neglected.
Scientists at the University of Costa Rica, for example, have genetically engineered rice to provide resistance to a virus that is a major problem in the tropics. But before the university can sell the seeds to farmers, it must get clearance from holders of as many as 34 patents, said Dr. Ana Sittenfeld, an associate professor there.
In the United States, about 45 percent of plant breeders at universities said that trouble getting seeds from private companies interfered with their research, according to a 1999 survey by Steven C. Price, director for industry relations at the University of Wisconsin.
"The things that give us a safe and healthy food supply are slowly eroding," said Dr. Samuel H. Smith, the former president of Washington State University, who is trying to secure more financing for land-grant colleges like his own. "It's a slow death."
Seed companies and other agricultural experts dismiss any safety concerns or say they are overstated.
And, they say, the private sector influx has brought with it new technology and increased total research spending.
"Nobody was investing any serious money in improving soybeans until there was intellectual property protection," said Dr. Tony Cavalieri, a vice president at Pioneer Hi-Bred International.
But some critics say companies are overemphasizing genetic engineering because it is easier to protect engineered crops with patents. That is risky, they say, because consumers may reject bioengineered food. Nor is it certain that biotechnology will improve crop output the way classical breeding has.
"I am worried we are getting off the proven thoroughbred too quickly to get on a highly decorated donkey," Dr. Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists said.
Others worry that a small group of companies could control the world's food supply.
Such concerns were heightened in January when two companies announced they had determined the genetic code of rice, years ahead of a government effort.
"One thing people could argue is, How can a company own the most important food crop in the world?" said Dr. Rod A. Wing of Clemson University. "In Asia, rice is like a religion. To own a religion, so to speak, that's just a question. Can you do that? I don't think so."
The shift from public to private research was spurred by court and patent office decisions in the 1980's that allowed plant varieties and genes to be patented. The rulings meant that companies could more easily recoup investments in improved crops. And with the advent of biotechnology, advanced research now requires tools that some public institutes cannot afford, like gene databases.
At the same time, growth in government spending on farm research has slowed as fears of widespread hunger have abated. In industrialized countries, public spending has been growing 1.8 percent a year and private spending 5 percent, according to Philip G. Pardey, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.
The United States Department of Agriculture's research budget, about $2 billion a year, has barely grown in real terms over two decades.
Britain has privatized some government agricultural research centers. And some developing countries have actually cut research spending.
In the United States, private agricultural research spending surpassed public spending in the early 1980's, and the gap has widened. By 1994, two-thirds of American plant breeding was in the private sector, according to an Iowa State University survey that is still considered authoritative. "Breeders in the public sector have essentially vanished," said Dr. William F. Tracy, professor of agronomy at the University of Wisconsin.
If public breeding withers, perhaps the biggest concern is that the improvement of crops for the developing world will falter because of low profit potential.
"It's the same phenomenon with the malaria vaccine," said Dr. Hubert Zandstra, director general of the International Potato Center in Peru, which is supported by governments and charities. "Why is there no malaria vaccine? Because there's no one to pay for it."
Dr. Zandstra said seed companies hesitated to develop virus-resistant potato seeds because the harm done by viruses forced farmers to buy new seeds. But with his center developing such seeds, companies are following so they don't lose sales.
Even in wealthy countries, companies are not likely to devote much effort to minor crops.
A further concern is that a wave of acquisitions has left much of the seed business and most agricultural biotech patents in the hands of five big companies: Monsanto; Syngenta; DuPont, which bought Pioneer Hi- Bred; Dow Chemical; and Aventis.
Some smaller companies also worry about this trend.
"If the companies are making all those discoveries they may lock them up," said Dr. Jerry Caulder, chief executive of the Akkadix Corporation, an agricultural biotech start-up. "If our universities were doing it, then literally thousands of new companies could be created.":
