Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Wednesday, July 29, 2015 Breakout Session on Objective 1, Plant Breeding Capacity Objective 1: Collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the U.S. plant breeding effort in both public and private sectors, to include human capacity and access to enabling knowledge, technologies, germplasm, and infrastructure Attendance: Fred Bliss, Wayne Smith, Trevor Rife and Jamie Sherman. Bill Tracy joined after the IP session ended. Actions items: 1) Modify Fred Bliss’s current instrument to create a survey that will gather information about plant breeding capacity. 2) Once the instrument is created, send to a few in PBCC to review and for IRB exemption through Montana State University (we believe due to the nature of this survey we will not require a full IRB review). 3) Using Bill Tracy’s list of over 400 public plant breeders, send out survey. 4) We plan to organize results by Crop Advisory Committee groups to ensure coverage of all crops. 5) Wayne Smith is approaching some possible contributors to support this effort (e.g., large seed companies, ASTA), since there is concern NAPB is not yet ready to contribute. 6) Modify the instrument for use in querying industry. 7) We hope to set up a database for the information and a system so that this survey can be regularly repeated. Breakout Session for Objective 2, Plant Genetic Resources Objective 2: Promote the conservation, characterization, and utilization of plant genetic resources and access to those resources for plant breeding. Attendance: Kate Evans, David Francis, Ksenija Gasic, Kim Garland-Campbell Golnaz Komaei Koma, Peggy Ozias-Akins, Cameron Pearce, Phil Simon, Narinder Singh, Shree Singh, Gayle Volk, Eric Young, Pat Byrne Discussion: 1. Earlier this summer, Eric Young requested that PBCC be granted liaison status on the National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee. The request was granted, so PBCC must now appoint its representative. David Baltensperger, who is the rep of the National Association of Plant Breeders on the NPGCC, stated the committee’s desire that the PBCC rep be actively engaged in plant breeding. 2. A symposium proposal on ‘Unlocking plant genetic diversity for food and nutritional security’ was submitted by Pat Byrne, Ann Marie Thro, and Wayne Smith on behalf of PBCC. The proposal was accepted (with modifications), and will be scheduled during the AAAS annual meeting in Washington, Feb. 11-15, 2016. Future symposia should be considered in conjunction with the Crop Science Society of America and American Society for Horticultural Science. 3. Regarding the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, it was felt that a useful role for PBCC would be to provide background information on the treaty to PBCC members. The American Seed Trade Association has prepared background documents on the topic, and analyses are likely also available from other sources. Eric Young will send information on the status of attempts to gain support for the treaty from State Ag Experiment Stations. 4. There is a critical need for increased long-term funding for phenotyping, population development, and pre-breeding of plant genetic resources. Funding to Crop Germplasm Committees for phenotyping has been stagnant or declining. In many cases the CGC’s need to update their priority lists for trait evaluation. A ‘white paper’ on the need for more funding for plant genetic resources was proposed and endorsed by the group. Actions items: 1. Pat Byrne will discuss with the PBCC leadership the procedure for seeking nominations and appointing a rep to the National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee. 2. Eric Young will send information on the International Treaty. 3. Phil Simon and Gayle Volk will communicate with Peter Bretting (coordinator of the U.S. Plant Germplasm System) on the status of CGC funding. They will also take the lead in brainstorming for a white paper on the need for increased phenotyping/pre-breeding of plant genetic resources. Breakout session for Objective 3, Intellectual Property Objective 3: Identify Best Management Practices for public sector intellectual property protection to encourage the creation and distribution of improved crops for a broad range of needs and opportunities. Attendance: Bill Tracy, Julia Piaskowski, Tom Koch, Marymar Butruille, Barry Tillman, Klaus Kohler Discussion: 1. Two major problems are that 1) each University has different IP policies (problems with freedom to operate), and 2) no royalties flow back to the program (public programs). University technology transfer offices don't recognize this problem and can sometimes take all the funds. 2. A survey of public plant breeding programs will quantify the IP situation by breeder, crop, institution, etc. 3. Can we create a "best practices for IP in public universities" guide? Barry Tillman will serve as a guide on this. University of Florida has a very good model of managing plant improvement IP. Ag school is the unique holder of utility patents. Strong team for patent enforcement. 4. Plant breeding is uniquely dependent on royalties to support their R&D. 5. There's considerable overlap between Fred Bliss's work, NAPB and PBCC. We need better integration - can we join forces - stronger organizer with more resources (people, their time, etc.). 6. USDA has organized a short informational session on IPR at the 2015 CSSA meetings (Div C1 and C8), with the PVPO and USPTO. Wed Nov 18, 1:30 – 2:30 PM. We hope this will be of service as background information to provide one and all with an accurate starting point. After the informative presentations there will be a moderated panel and some Q&A time. Suggestions for panelists, or suggested questions, are welcome. Alas there is no budget, so suggested panelists would have to be attending with other funding. They should be knowledgeable of IPR and tech transfer mechanisms, and should understand that USDA is limited to providing information. Action items: 1. Bill Tracy is leading the project (with a grant to do a survey) - so let's support this work. Those results can be used to draft a set of BMP's for IP or a white paper (or something else). The survey team will talk with stakeholders and prepare a synthesis of results. 2. The survey: how many public sector breeders exist, their crops, cost of to run program, funding sources. 3. Creating a database of public breeders. Adrienne Shelton put together a list of 380 public sector breeders. We can make this a live database on the NAPB website. . 4. Create educational resources regarding IP. Invite an IP expert (a lawyer) to discuss different IP options and how to manage IP in general. How does the land grant mission apply to IP agreements? In some cases, the tech transfer agreements for sharing germplasm are overly limiting. 5. Can we summarize this work on the NAPB website to generate interest and awareness? Bill Tracy can talk with the Exec Committee about this. 6. Expected outcomes: • Survey underway. • Breeder database posted on NAPB website. • Salient points of the issue and the committee's work summarized on the NAPB website. • IP workshop scheduled at next year's meeting. Breakout session for Objective 4, Private-Public Collaboration Objective 4: Optimize opportunities for public-private collaboration in plant breeding research and education, including continuing education for plant breeders. Attendance: Thomas Lubberstedt, David Baltensperger, Stephen Baenziger, Mike Havey, Don Blackburn, Anne Marie Thro Discussion: 1. Internships were seen as realistic and desirable tool to increase private–public collaboration. For undergraduate students, internships in industry provide hands-on exposure to plant breeding, and in addition give students an opportunity to experience plant breeding in practical breeding programs of potential future employers. For graduate students timing of internships is critical to avoid conflicts with busy summer activities. There are opportunities to address this issue in companies, for example, internships in winter nurseries or for crops with different peak periods. There is a need for a “best practice protocol” agreed upon by private and public entities to ensure a high quality experience to students and to stimulate promotion of internships both by universities and industry. If successful, more internships will increase the pool of students interested in plant breeding. 2. Iowa State University is currently in the process of hiring a lecturer, who will be charged to establish core competencies in plant breeding (critical skills and knowledge) to help revise the ISU plant breeding curriculum in close collaboration with an Ag Education expert. While this is mostly focusing on disciplinary competencies, it was pointed out that soft skills (e.g., communication ability) and understanding of plant breeding as business (economic perspective) are also important competencies of high interest to breeding companies as main employers of plant breeding students. Those will have to be taken into account when defining core competencies in a plant breeding education. Better understanding and definition of core competencies (which evolve over time) will help to prepare students for their future jobs. Moreover, these core competencies will enable feedback from possible future employers and impact curriculum development at universities. 3. The emerging Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) was seen as the most urgent target to develop collaborative research proposals between public universities (together with companies) and organizations. It will be important to connect with / impact decision makers of FFAR. This is currently the most promising route for funded public-private research proposals. Actions items: 1. 2-page white papers will be developed for each of the above-listed three topics sequentially with 1 month each for 4.1 (deadline Dec. 1, 2015), 4.2 (Feb. 1, 2016), and 4.3 (Nov. 15, 2016). Each white paper will include an action plan. 2. Leaders/coordinators for those three white papers are Stephen Baenziger (4.1), Thomas Lubberstedt (4.2), and Don Blackburn (4.3). All participants of this break out group listed above (except Ann Marie, who will be informed about progress) will participate in preparing all three white papers. 3. This will be an open process, to which other persons are welcome to contribute. In addition, we will invite experts to help preparing particular white papers: • 4.1 Mike Havey; a number of private sector contacts suggested • 4.2 Fred Bliss, Heather Merck • 4.3 Donn Cummings, “Person knowledgeable about funding opportunities” Breakout session for Objective 5, Communication Objective 5. Foster communication among public plant breeders and federal agencies on public policy issues, including alerts to existing and emerging threats to agricultural security that are relevant to plant breeding. Attendance: Michael Gore, Amy Iezzoni, Jim McFerson, Richard Pratt, David Stelly Discussion: 1. Need to identify what are the existing and emerging threats to agricultural security as it relates to plant breeding. 2. More specifically, need to determine if future limitations on access to transgenic and genome editing technologies for plant breeding is an existing or emerging threat. 3. More specifically, need to determine which disease, pest, and/or environmental factors are the major threats to specific crops. Action items: 1. Send requests to all the USDA-ARS crop germplasm committees for a list of major threats for each crop. M. Gore will contact Peter Bretting, USDA–ARS Senior National Program Leader for Plant Germplasm and Genomes, for contacts of all the crop germplasm committees. 2. Send requests to all the SAES Directors for a list of major threats for crops associated with their stakeholders. A. Iezzoni will talk with her SAES Director to see how the questions should be focused to most readily extract salient information. The communication subcommittee will develop a survey template to extract this salient information that can be delivered along with other surveys disseminated by the “Breeding capacity survey” to SAES directors. 3. Develop a working relationship with the “Alliance for Science” (http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/) at Cornell University to make available evidence-based resources for SAES Directors and public breeders that can help them effectively communicate biotechnology with stakeholders and the public if they so choose or need. M. Gore has started a dialogue with Sarah Davidson Evanega, the director of the project at Cornell University. PBCC is already being included in the “Alliance for Science” strategy and thinking. It is important to note that PBCC is not taking a position but helping to provide access to evidence-based resources.