Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on

Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives





May 21, 2009


Oxford Don's Solution for Global Hunger; Measuring the Economic Impacts; Hungry for GM Crops; Hunger Crisis Seen Still Tied to Politics; IP Handbook


* A Solution for Global Hunger?
* Biotech Crops Making Important Contributions to Sustainable Farming
* Economic Impacts of Transgenic Crops in during the First Decade
* Why Take A Worldview?: Scientific American special on biotch
* Hungry for GM Crops
* Africa Hunger Crisis Seen Still Tied to Politics
* Dr. Robert McDonald of The Nature Conservancy on Sustainability
* IP Handbook
* PSI Are My Soybeans Wearing Different Genes?

A Solution for Global Hunger?

 Mike Wilson, Farm Futures, May 20, 2009 http://www.farmfutures.com

'Oxford Professor says lower biofuel subsidies, greater GM acceptance and less 'peasant agriculture' would help feed growing number of malnourished'

Lower U.S. biofuel subsidies, acceptance of GM food in Europe and the adoption of large-scale, commercial agricultural practices in developing countries would go a long way to reduce the number of hungry in the world, which has grown to an alarming 1 billion people.

That is the conclusion of author and Oxford University Economics Professor Paul Collier, who spoke this week at the World Agricultural Forum held in St. Louis.  "In Africa and other places around the world, people experienced up to 80% increases in their food costs over the last three years," he says. "The urban poor were spending half their budget on food. As a result we had food riots around the world and toppled governments in places like Haiti."

Beyond political costs, the nutritional cost of a malnourished child is often irreversible, says Collier. "They are often already on the margin of nutritional adequacy, but if you push them below that margin for more than two years you get stunting, and that is irreversible."

World agriculture has done a good job keeping up with world population growth, but in the future it must do an even better job. But the real problem, argues Collier, is politics and global policies, which tend to be well-meaning but empty gestures.

The solution to world hunger lies in three areas:

* First, get rid of the ban on genetically modified crops in Europe. "It's unfortunate that Europe shot itself in the foot on GM, but it was disastrous for Africa," he says. "By shooting itself in the foot, Europe shot Africa in the heart." Climate deterioration is already a reality in Africa, one reason why the continent needs all the technology help it can get. "GM crops are not the magic bullet but they will speed up the pace of crop adaptation," Collier says. "It's very fortunate that GM has been discovered and its potential needs to be harnessed as rapidly as possible."

* Second, get rid of U.S. subsidies on biofuels. Collier believes Americans have an unrealistic "illusion" that by subsidizing a budding biofuel industry, the country can break its dependence on Mid East oil. "I read that if the entire U.S. grain crop was devoted to biofuels it would only meet 8% of U.S. fuel needs," says Collier. "Realistically, it would meet 100% of the U.S. fuel needs because you would all be starving to death. This is not the solution to America's energy problems."

Instead, the U.S. should institute policies that force consumers to become more efficient in using energy. "Europe manages to use only half as much energy per person as Americans, and they live a prosperous life," Collier says. "You don't have to increase taxation to do this – just tax work less and energy consumption more, and you're done."

In some context biofuels make sense, Collier adds. For example, consuming biofuel made from Iowa corn in Iowa makes sense because transport costs are minimal. What doesn't make sense is to produce biofuels in Iowa and ship that product thousands of miles away while simultaneously paying transport costs to ship foreign oil into Iowa. Collier sees a solution to both issues if Europe and America can compromise – Europe opens markets to GM crops and U.S. reduces subsidies to the biofuel industry. And the chances of that happening are better now due to restrictions on budgets as a result of recession.

* Third, stop promoting the concept of organic peasant farming as a solution to hunger.  The kind of 'romantic populism' that Prince Charles advocates cannot supply the world's food needs, argues Collier. "The development agencies and behind them the NGOs (Non Government Organizations) have had an attachment to this peasant agriculture mentality, and that has been very dysfunctional," he says. "For ag production, scale and modern organization matters. The marketing and logistics chain of modern Ag is intensive and it makes peasant farming less and less viable.

"There's a big effort with micro credit to connect peasant agriculture with finance, but its tremendously difficult," Collier reasons. "Modern agriculture is all about marketing, capital, technology and innovation. Around the world, peasant agriculture is bad at all of that."

Collier says the best solution is to take the Brazilian model of large-scale agriculture and try to apply it in Africa. "It needs to be a parallel development alongside efforts to improve peasant agriculture," he says. "In parts of Africa there are huge lots of land radically under used. African governments are just now waking up to using those areas for modern agriculture."


Biotech Crops Making Important Contributions to Sustainable Farming

- May 20, 2009, Atlanta, USA http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk

New (annual) study shows biotech crops have delivered significant global economic and environmental benefits and are making important contributions to global food production & security.

"Since 1996, biotech crop adoption has contributed to reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, decreased pesticide spraying and significantly boosted farmers' incomes," said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, co-author of the report. "The technology has also made important contributions to increasing the yields of many farmers, reducing production risks, improving productivity and raising global production of key crops. The combination of economic and environmental benefit delivery is therefore making a valuable contribution to improving the sustainability of global agriculture, with these benefits and improvements being greatest in developing countries"

Previewing the findings of the comprehensive study, the key findings are:

• Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with biotech crops. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year;

• Biotech crops have reduced pesticide spraying ) by 359 million kg (-8.8%: equivalent to about 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union) and as a result decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 17.2%;

• Herbicide tolerant biotech crops have facilitated the adoption of no/reduced tillage production systems in many regions, especially South America. This has made important contributions to reducing soil erosion and improving soil moisture levels;

• There have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $10.1 billion in 2007 and $44.1 billion for the twelve year period. The farm income gains in 2007 is equivalent to adding 4.4% to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton;

• Of the total farm income benefit, 46.5% ($20.5 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production. Two thirds of the yield gain derive from adoption of insect resistant crops and the balance from herbicide tolerant crops;

• Farmers in developing countries obtained the largest share of the farm income gains in 2007 (58%) and over the twelve year period obtained 50% of the total ($44.1 billion) gains;

• The cost farmers paid for accessing GM technology in 2007 was equal to 24% of the total technology gains (a total of $13.2 billion inclusive of farm income gains ($10.1 billion) plus cost of the technology payable to the seed supply chain ($3.17 billion ));

• For farmers in developing countries the total cost of accessing the technology in 2007 was equal to about 14% of total technology gains, whilst for farmers in developed countries the cost was 34% of the total technology gains. Whilst circumstances vary between countries, the higher share of total technology gains accounted for by farm income gains in developing countries relative to the farm income share in developed countries reflects factors such as weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights in developing countries;

• Since 1996, biotech traits have added 67.8 million tonnes and 62.4 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 6.85 million tonnes of cotton lint and 4.44 million tonnes of canola;

• Production of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola on the areas planted to biotech crops, in 2007, were respectively +29.8%, +7.6%, +19.8% and +8.5% higher than levels would have otherwise been if GM technology had not been used by farmers;

• If GM technology had not been available to the (12 million) farmers using the technology in 2007, maintaining global production levels at the 2007 levels would have required additional plantings of 5.9 million ha of soybeans, 3 million ha of corn, 2.5 million ha of cotton and 0.3 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to about 6% of the arable land in the US, or 23% of the arable land in Brazil.


Measuring the Economic Impacts of Transgenic Crops in Developing Agriculture during the First Decade:
Approaches, Findings, and Future Directions

- Melinda Smale, Patricia Zambrano, Guillaume Gruère, José Falck-Zepeda, Ira Matuschke, Daniela Horna, Latha Nagarajan, Indira Yerramareddy, and Hannah Jones, IFPRI Food Policy Review No. 10, 2009


Biotechnology in agriculture has generated a great deal of controversy in recent years. Of the many scientific advances that have occurred in plant breeding since Gregor Mendel conducted his experiments about 150 years ago, crops with genetic modifications seem to have been accorded a unique status. The use of crops that are modified by the transfer of genes across species has provoked concerns that continue to be echoed in the media and the academic press and have reached into the fields and lives of farmers in both rich and poor countries. An issue that remains unresolved is that what consumers and producers in rich countries may want is not necessarily what producers and consumers in poor countries may need (and want); hence, the preferences of the rich countries—transformed into science and development policies—may hinder the poor’s access to needed technologies.

This review of scholarly literature explores a key concern of IFPRI’s: whether biotech crops can benefit poor farmers. The authors examine the issue by emphasizing the methods applied to empirical data from developing countries, because these methods influence the nature of economists’ findings and how they interpret them. The authors consider the economic impacts of biotech crops not only on farmers, but also on consumers, the agricultural sector as a whole, and international trade. They have also compiled a web-bibliography, bEcon, which is available to researchers, particularly those in developing countries, as a tool to further their own understanding of the evidence.

The authors conclude that biotech crops have promise for poor farmers. Further in-depth investigation is required. Bt cotton is by far the most studied biotech crop, but analysis of the economic impacts of other crops has only begun. Impacts on poverty, inequality, health, and the environment need more rigorous exploration. Particular aspects of biotech crops—such as the institutional organization of their supply, the way that knowledge and transgenic seed are diffused in communities, and the costs and benefits of biosafety regulations—warrant in-depth investigation.

So far, the published economics research that has applied a clearly identified method to empirical data collected in the fields of farmers in developing countries is limited. One reason is that few biotech crops have been introduced in developing-country agriculture, partly due to slow or hindered bio-policies and regulatory frameworks. Development cooperation organizations have not sufficiently invested in these; the above-mentioned preferences of some rich countries come into play here again. IFPRI is assisting developing countries to develop and implement such appropriate regulatory frameworks.

I trust that this report and the related web-bibliography will assist developing country researchers in establishing their own evidence base and will help in their endeavors and encourage them to address the important questions that remain to be answered. Agricultural productivity and environmental challenges—including climate change—and growing long-term food needs will require access to and utilization of advanced biotechnology in developing-country agriculture.

Joachim von Braun


Why Take A Worldview?: Looking far and wide to see our innovation future

- Yali Friedman and Mike May, Scientific American World View - A Global Biotechnology Perspective (Special on Biotech) http://www.saworldview.com/

The breadth of biotechnology—from advanced farm crops and novel pharmaceuticals to forests that hold the raw materials for biofuels—takes us around the world. Every country benefits from biotechnology in some way, more likely many ways. In addition, a wide range of thinking—scientific, political, financial, regulatory, social—determines what biotech can and cannot do. To assess this jumble of interacting objectives and controlling forces, one must take a worldview.

Innovation is a key element of biotechnology. In most cases the important discussions of innovative capacity and output take place primarily among government economists and academic researchers. It is our intention to bring this discussion to a larger audience in a meaningful, independent forum; too often a region or country’s climate for scientific growth and development is masked by marketing messages. As taxpayers, innovators, commercial partners and consumers, it is important to understand why innovation matters and how best to measure and support it.

Before descending into any details, we must ask the fundamental question: Why do governments invest in biotechnology? First, global economies desire the economic and social benefits that biotech brings, such as creating high-value products, which can be sold in international markets. Thus, policies that foster the creation of these products expand domestic economies through revenues from foreign sales. Second, biotechnology generates high-paying jobs, which can increase both a nation’s prosperity and the quality of life of its citizens. Third, biotechnology impacts health, nutrition and the environment. The ability to produce drugs domestically, for example, can reduce healthcare costs and improve overall care in small or poor economies. And the ability to improve crop yields addresses the pressing need faced by many nations to feed increasing populations with a diminishing amount of arable land. For these nations, biotechnology can help avoid otherwise inevitable mass starvation. And, of course, biotechnology can reduce the financial cost and environmental impact of industrial processes, helping corporations profit and governments attain their “green” goals of the future.

This project—the assessment of innovation in international biotechnology—was conceived prior to the current global economic crisis, at a time when the funding environment for biotechnology was very different than it is now. Our initial goal was to inventory global activities that support the development of domestic biotechnology industries, and to rank the performance of the various initiatives. Since we started, the environment has changed and the stakes are now much higher. Biotechnology requires great up-front capital investments—often well in advance of revenues—that make biotechnology companies especially sensitive to poor capital-raising environments.

In a sense, the current economic climate serves as a test of resolve. It is easy to pledge large investments to support biotechnology companies when cash is plentiful, but in a financial crisis, supporters must carefully assess their priorities. The influence of the economic crisis will undoubtedly transform the global biotechnology industry and separate the weak from the strong—distinguishing policies that enable growth from ones that do not. Still, choices will be complex. Legislators will make policy decisions with future elections at risk. Moreover, tax subsidies to biotechnology could create higher taxes for other industries or taxpayers in general. It will be interesting to follow the choices that leaders make.

To explore this variety of topics, we have gathered a unique mix of editorial perspectives from overviews, such as our data-driven scorecard of global biotechnology innovation, to more-focused pieces, including a dozen country-specific vignettes, and traditional feature articles. We welcome your comments and feedback and look forward to continuing this important conversation.

Explore at http://www.saworldview.com/


Hungry for GM Crops

- Emily Waltz, Scientific American World View - A Global Biotechnology Perspective (Special on Biotech)


'Feeding the world requires more than genetic modifications, because much of the trouble arises from social and political constraints'

On a summer day in 1997 Dennis Gonsalves, a plant pathologist at Cornell University, boarded a flight to Thailand with papaya plants in his carry-on luggage. He and his colleagues had spent a decade genetically altering the plants to resist a lethal virus called ringspot, which was destroying papaya crops worldwide. The technology was working in Hawaii—it eventually saved the state’s papaya industry—and officials at Thailand’s Department of Agriculture had asked Gonsalves to bring his plants to Thailand to transfer the technology to varieties there. It was urgent. Thailand had already lost half of its papayas, a staple food that many Thai people eat three times a day.

Gonsalves and his Thai colleague Vilai Prasartsee set up experiments at the Thai Department of Agriculture’s research station in Tha Pra in the northeast province Khon Kaen. Within two years, the group had grown rows of papaya trees nearly 100-percent resistant to the ringspot virus. "They were beautiful field trials," Gonsalves says.

In 2004 Gonsalves’ team was working toward regulatory approval when activists from Amsterdam-based Greenpeace broke into the site wearing respiratory masks and pulled the fruit off the trees. Pre-alerted members of the media snapped pictures, and the activists accused the research station of illegally distributing seeds. Two months later Thailand’s prime minister ordered the destruction of all genetically modified (GM) crops in the country and banned all GM field trials. Workers at the Tha Pra research station chopped down the papaya trees and buried them in pits.

The remainder of Gonsalves’ virus-resistant papaya seeds have sat in a locked refrigerator for the past five years as ringspot has decimated Thailand’s papayas. Villagers near the research station still ask Prasartsee for GM seeds, she says, but she cannot give them any. "I know in my heart that the northeast farmers would love to have this papaya," Gonsalves’ wife Carol recently wrote in a letter to him. Carol had worked in her husband’s lab, accompanying him to Tha Pra. "As I sit here writing, the sadness just envelops me, and tears are streaming down my face."

Continental Clashes Over Crops
The extreme regulatory precaution taken by some developing countries like Thailand has thwarted the efforts of countless researchers who hoped to bring GM crops to hungry people. "The barriers have prevented scientists from making the impact they could have had," says Roger Beachy, president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Mo.

A global map of GM crops shows the world’s caution. Nearly 86 percent of all transgenic crops are grown in only four countries: Argentina (the second largest GM-crop grower in the world), Brazil, Canada and the United States (the world’s leading GM-crop grower). Europe’s lead in questioning the technology has influenced much of the rest of the world. "There’s a natural deference to the way Europe does things," says Robert Paarlberg, a political scientist at Wellesley College and author of Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa. Some African governments think they should do the same. Such governments also fear that if they grow transgenic crops, Europe will stop accepting their food exports. Although according to Sharon Bomer, Executive VP of the Food and Agriculture Division of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, attitudes are starting to change.

It is a fair concern since GM crops and foods remain controversial in the European Union (EU). In February 2009, in fact, EU experts came to a stalemate when asked to approve the planting of two kinds of GM corn. Nonetheless, a range of GM products—such as specific types of corn, cotton, soybeans and so on—are approved for use as food and feed. Recent news of genes from GM corn appearing in traditional crops in Mexico, however, will probably fan the GM hesitation in the EU.

In general, wealthy nations can get away with repudiating GM crops because they know they will remain well fed without new technology, says Paarlberg. Not so in developing countries. One-third of the African population is chronically hungry. China over the past few years has been tapping its rice stockpiles, and by 2020 it will have to increase its grain production by about 25 percent to feed its growing population.

Europe has rejected transgenic crops with tight regulations. But the barriers in developing countries are as much about under-regulation as over-regulation. Developing countries often lack the scientific expertise needed to draw up Euro-style biosafety laws. Without some kind of process in place, crop developers have no clear path for regulatory approval—effectively a ban on transgenic crops.

Meanwhile discouraged public-sector scientists in the United States have stopped asking for grants for field trials. "Many of us in academia have shied from attempting to develop products for the market and have stuck to conducting fundamental research because product development appears out of reach," Beachy says.

Golden Rice To The Rescue?

This downtrodden field needs a success story, says Gonsalves, who now works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We just need one example," he says. The creators of Golden Rice hope to provide it. Golden Rice has been modified to contain vitamin A, and after eight years of political delays, field trials finally began in the Philippines in 2008. "We will prevail in this project, and we are going to get it to the people," declares Adrian Dubock, who is part of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board.

To avoid situations like what Gonzalves faced, some research groups are taking a proactive approach. The Danforth Center, for example, has created a Biosafety Resource Center that is addressing regulatory concerns in tandem with their development of GM crops for developing countries.

For Vilai Prasartsee in Thailand, the barriers surrounding transgenic papaya, particularly the efforts of anti-GM activists, have been mentally exhausting, she says. This summer she plans to finish one last papaya project—a non-GM variety that shows some resistance to the ringspot virus. "I want to release these seeds to the farmers and then retire," she says. "I hope Greenpeace doesn’t come."


Africa Hunger Crisis Seen Still Tied to Politics

- Christine Stebbins, Reuters, May 20, 2009

Agricultural experts looking at Africa's enduring problems with food shortages and famine say hunger is unlikely to be solved there unless political stability returns to allow investment to flourish. "Investment is not going to flow into unstable areas. It is not going to flow into poorly governed areas no matter what the natural resource space is -- it's just not going to happen," J.B. Penn, chief economist with equipment maker John Deere and former USDA economist, told a round-table at the World Agricultural Forum here this week.

"First and foremost, we've got to get the political system right. Then investment will follow. With the investment comes the technology," Penn said.

Africa, as it has for decades in the post-World War Two independence era, continues to be the leading destination for world food aid shipments but also for deaths from famine.

Political chaos in Zimbabwe that turned the nation from a grain exporter to a hunger crisis is often cited by investors. "Particularly at risk of widespread famine are over a dozen so-called "left-behind" countries, almost all in sub-Saharan Africa, that feature severe and increasing natural resources constraints coupled with high population growth and limited nonagricultural income possibilities," the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations said on May 4.

With the recession in rich countries, there are few fresh infusions of investment capital flowing into Africa, with much of the recent investment coming from private foundations funded by Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett and the Rockefellers, experts say. Gary Blumenthal, chief executive of agricultural consultancy World Perspectives, told the forum: "Only 10 percent of all foreign direct investment around the world went into the food category. If you look at agricultural production, it was 0.006 percent."

Investment to transport grains and livestock and improve water and irrigation are key to Africa progress, experts said. But a big part may come down to a four-letter word: seed.

"What is the single most important thing that we can do tomorrow to improve food security in Africa? The answer is very clearly seeds. It is something that is available and farmers can grow everywhere," Aline O'Connor Funk, an agricultural consultant in Sub-Saharan Africa, told the forum.Funk said there are three major seed research and development areas that are simply bypassing the needs of Africa -- germ plasma, seed treatment and biotechnology. "The best hope for food security and land sustainability is tied to seeds," Funk said.

Agribusiness representatives agreed that political stability was key for investment but government regulations on issues like trade restrictions and biotechnology were also barriers that deter private capital flows into Africa.

"We would increase some of our investments in some of these African countries. But it's really about the unpredictability of barriers of technology -- also the unpredictability of whether in one season or another an export ban will go in," said Devry Boughner, director of international business with Cargill Inc. While South Africa allows in some biotech seed varieties that can help fight weeds or drought and pests, many African nations still bar the technology, citing human health fears.

But Gerald Steiner, executive vice president of Monsanto , the top producer of genetically modified seeds, said attitudes within Africa seem to be changing as they have watched India double its cotton production using biotech seeds.

"We are seeing a number of countries -- Uganda, Tanzania, Egypt, Mali, Ethiopia -- advance biosafety regulations. So things are starting to move in Africa," Steiner said.


Dr. Robert McDonald of The Nature Conservancy on Sustainability

April 9, 2009 http://agbiotechblog.com/

Dr. Robert McDonald, Vanguard Scientist with The Nature Conservancy, will be a presenter on the “Environment, Economy and Society: Plant Biotechnology’s Role in Advancing Sustainable Development” panel Thursday, May 21, 2009 at the BIO Convention. He took time out of his schedule to answer some questions on his work, his presentation at BIO, and the issues of sustainability and agriculture.

This is the first in a series of interviews with BIO Convention speakers we will be posting.

Who are you and what do you do?
I’m the Vanguard Scientist at The Nature Conservancy, which works to preserve the diversity of wildlife and plants on Earth by protecting the habitats and ecological process on which they depend. We work throughout the U.S. and in more than 30 countries, and have about 700 scientists on staff who help us make science-based plans to fulfill our mission. My job is to think about global threats to biodiversity that we may need to do some more science or planning for, and then help us do that! One big part of my job is thinking about global agricultural expansion and intensification in the coming decades, and coming up with conservation strategies that can help minimize the biodiversity impacts of agricultural production.

You have been quoted as saying that “Urban dwellers influence land use on almost every hectare on Earth.” What do you mean by that?
More than half of humanity lives in cities, and that proportion will continue to increase in coming decades. Cities not only directly affect the landscape through urban development, they are also central places of economic consumption and growth. So the needs and desires of urban dwellers end up shaping human land-use over a much broader area. If, for example, newly well-off Chinese city dwellers want to eat more meat, then the Chinese landscape will be reshaped as agricultural producers satisfy that demand. So there is a profound link between what is happening in urban areas and what is happening in rural areas.

You will be on the panel “Environment, Economy and Society: Plant Biotechnology’s Role in Advancing Sustainable Development.” Would you provide a description of your presentation?
Conservationists use the word “sustainable” to talk about an end point, while agriculturalists use it to talk about a process. The dramatic growth in yields in the 20th century reduced agriculture’s per-bushel impact on the environment, but the total cumulative impact of agriculture on the environment has steadily increased. I will talk about sustainability in agriculture from the perspective of The Nature Conservancy, an international conservation organization that works with agricultural producers in thousands of projects through the U.S. and in more than 30 countries.

What is plant biotechnology’s role in advancing sustainable development?
From my perspective as a conservationist, biotechnology may potentially play two key roles. First, biotechnology may help to continue to increase yield from agricultural crops. As the world will have 2 billion more mouths to feed in 2050, increases in yield can help limit the area of agricultural expansion, which is of significant concern to conservationists. Second, biotechnology may be able to play a role in limiting the environmental impact of production, whether by making plants more water efficient or helping reduce nitrogen run-off from fields.

With a growing population and finite or shrinking resources, sustainable development seems like an important concept. Can the need to embrace sustainable development capture the attention of the public in the same way as climate change?
The public has always been receptive to the idea that we should leave our children a world as rich in natural resources as we have enjoyed, which is the core idea of sustainable development. In that sense, stopping the worst damage from climate change is the same thing as working for sustainable development. I think it is true, though, that folks can’t get behind sustainable development as an abstract concept, but only are motivated to act when a specific resource they care about is threatened and when they can see the effect in their own lives.


IP Handbook


Prepared by and for policy-makers, leaders of public and private sector research, tech transfer professionals, licensing executives, and scientists, this online resource offers up-to-date information and strategies for utilizing the power of both intellectual property and the public domain. Emphasis is placed on advancing innovation in health and agriculture, though many of the principles outlined here are broadly applicable across many fields.

This site is based on the comprehensive Handbook and Executive Guide that provide substantive discussions and analysis of the opportunities awaiting anyone in the field who wants to put intellectual property to work. The printed version includes 153 chapters on a full range of IP topics and over 50 case studies, composed by over 200 authors from North, South, East, and West, whereas this online resource contains much more than the Handbook. Among others, users like you are expanding the content with comments, discussions and document uploads.

If you are new to this site, we invite you to use the site guides available for policymakers, senior administrators, technology transfer managers, or scientists. The site guide distills the key points of each IP topic covered by the Handbook into simple language and places it in the context of evolving best practices specific to your professional role within the overall picture of IP management.


PSI Are My Soybeans Wearing Different Genes?