Generation Challenge Programme
GCP website		Integrated Breeding
IBP website		Sunset Blog
Sunset blog		   Connect with us GCP on Facebook GCP on Twitter GCP on LinkedIn Subscribe to GCP Newsletter Subscribe to GCP RSS feeds

♫We’ll rock your world!♫

 Comparative genomics in cereals, Crop breeding, Genomics, Researchers, Rice  No Responses »
Sep 072012
 

“It is very rare that scientists can take their projects wherever they go. I’ve been very lucky to be able to do this, and much of this has to do with the support I’ve received from GCP.” – Matthias Wissuwa

In the world of phosphorus, Matthias (pictured) is somewhat of a ‘rock star, not that he would admit to it. We don’t understand why not, since to borrow his words, the project he’s involved has becoming something of a ‘celebrity project’ in the scientific community.

For  a decade-and-a-half, he has searched tirelessly for a rice gene that could improve the crop’s yield in phosphorus-deficient soils –which make up half of the world’s soils. Last month, his transnational team published in Nature that their 15-year quest had ended, having finally found the elusive gene – Pup1.

We celebrate this happy ending, especially as we had the added pleasure of talking to Matthias recently: it was delightful in listening to the modest German recount the long journey which has taken him from his home town of Hamburg, to USA, Japan, The Philippines and back to Japan, all this while,  faithfully ‘carrying’ Pup1 with him as he switched employers. As you’ve seen, Japan scores a double strike, so our ‘rock star’ is also ‘big on Japan’! 

Talking to Matthias, we could sense the achievement was only just sinking in – that he and his team’s years of laboratory work was becoming a practical reality that will aid rice-growing farmers from Africa to Asia,  and hopefully other grain growers in years to come. Here’s what Matthias had to say…

You started this project back in 1997. Tell us how you became interested in phosphorus deficiency and rice.

After completing my PhD in the United States, I accepted a postdoc position in Tsukuba, Japan, with the National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences (NIAES). It was an easy decision because my wife is Japanese.

My postdoc host, Dr Ae was interested in phosphorus, particularly in legumes. I originally started work on tolerance to phosphorus deficiency in groundnuts, but soon changed to rice to take advantage of the molecular tools available for rice.

Tsukuba is a very new city. It’s called The Science City in Japan because the Japanese government built it to house all the national research institutes. This was great for me as I became interested in QTL mapping, which was pioneered by scientists in Tsukuba. I got talking to people in the rice research community in Tsukuba and was introduced to Dr Yano, who was developing mapping populations for rice at the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences. He kindly gave me his populations and that’s how I started to map QTL for phosphorus-deficiency tolerance in rice.

Dr Ae was perplexed by my decision, believing that studying legumes was far more challenging than rice. He always told me: “Rice is boring. They just make long, fine roots to capture phosphorus.” That was 15 years ago and he turned out to be right. Long roots are the secret for phosphorus uptake in rice, particular in Kasalath and varieties like that.

Field trials for phosporus-efficient rice in The Philippines.

Did you share Dr Ae’s hypothesis that longer roots were the secret to some rice varieties being able to tolerate phosphorus-deficient soils?

For a long time, I was not sure if it was just long roots. It was a real chicken-and-egg scenario – does strong phosphorus uptake spur root growth, or the other way around?

As it turns out, it is the latter – plants growing longer roots help with the uptake of more phosphorus – and Pup1 is responsible for this.

We have now shifted our aim and are looking for varieties of rice tolerant to phosphorus-deficient soils that either:

  • release organic acids, phosphatases or some other compound that makes phosphorus more readily available for the plant to absorb, or
  • manipulate soil microorganisms to favour those that can aid in making phosphorus more soluble, or
  • very efficiently utilise phosphorus once it is taken up.

All three mechanisms are found in legumes, so there is reason to believe that they exist in rice and we are now working on finding them.

GCP has been interested in the project since 2004 as its outcome aligns with GCP’s goals to improve crop yields and security in developing countries… It has become something of a ‘celebrity project’ in the scientific community, attracting researchers to work on the project or collaborate with us.

In 2002 you left NIAES and accepted a position with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and were encouraged to continue your work on Pup1. When you moved back to Tsukuba in 2005 to accept the position you currently hold with the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), you were again encouraged to continue your Pup1 project, collaborating with your successor at IRRI, Dr Sigrid Heuer. How important has it been to you and the project to have the support of your institutes?

It is very rare that scientists can take their projects wherever they go. I’ve been very lucky to be able to do this, and much of this has to do with the support I’ve received from GCP. They’ve been interested in the project since 2004 as its outcome aligns with GCP’s goals to improve crop yields and security in developing countries.

When I left IRRI, Sigrid was just starting and was more or less free to take on the project, so I asked her if she’d be interested in continuing my work with Pup1 at IRRI and collaborate with me in Japan. She was actually the perfect person for the project because her background in molecular biology complemented my background as a plant breeder.

Over the past seven years, we have worked together very well, and with the addition of Rico Gamuyao, a PhD student supervised by Sigrid, things have recently progressed quite quickly to the point that we were able to pinpoint Pup1.

So GCP has played a major role along your journey?

Yes, definitely. The support from GCP on the Pup1 project, now in its 8th year, was instrumental at getting this project to where it is.

Quite simply, the funding from GCP allowed us to hire Rico as well as Juan Pariasca-Tanaka, a project scientist with me at JIRCAS. Neither Sigrid nor myself had the time to do all the hands-on work so having both Rico and Juan has been hugely helpful.

How important has the collaboration between IRRI and JIRCAS been for the project?

Are they playing with mud? Not at all! Working. Matthias (L) and Rico (R) have zipped up their boots and gone back to their bee…er…. we mean, roots, mucking mud here as they do some fieldwork related to the search for PSTOL1.

Tremendously important. Sigrid’s group at IRRI is relatively small as is mine in Japan, so we rely on each other’s complementary expertise when working on complicated projects.

We have also been fortunate to have constant interest in the project from the scientific community. It has become something of a ‘celebrity project’, and as such, attracted researchers to work on the project or collaborate with us.

For example, we are working with two US groups at Cornell University and Penn State, that are also funded by GCP, trying to track down Pup1 in other crops and identifying genes that control root architecture, and how different architectures may affect P uptake.

These collaborations are really exciting, and make it possible to answer questions that we could not answer ourselves, or that we would have overlooked, were it not for the partnerships.

It really has been a team effort and we wouldn’t have got to where we are now without all the help of everyone involved

You’ve been described as the Godfather and Guru of Pup1. How do compliments like this make you feel?

It makes me laugh but of course it’s a very well-meant comment, and to some extent, considering I’ve worked on it for 15 years, you could say that there is some truth to it.

I’ve done all the original work, but Sigrid has been just as instrumental. She did the part where my expertise was no longer adequate – the molecular side, looking at genes and thinking about the function of a gene and testing for its function.

It really has been a team effort and we wouldn’t have got to where we are now without all the help of everyone involved, which also includes the support of Dr Yano over the years.

…phosphorus deficiency is a worldwide problem that has recently gained public attention because of how expensive phosphate fertilisers have become…Farmers are always interested in saving money and improving yields and we believe this discovery will help with both.

Have you been surprised by the attention this project has received?

As I said, the project has always been in the scientific spotlight because it was the first to map a major QTL for phosphorus uptake.

We knew from the Sub1 story – the submergence tolerance gene, which was published in Nature 4–5 years ago – that the media would probably be interested in this similar discovery. I’m still very surprised that this unsexy story has caused such interest.

You have to remember though, phosphorus deficiency is a worldwide problem that has recently gained public attention because of how expensive phosphate fertilisers have become. About four years ago, the price almost tripled and continues to stay high.

Farmers are always interested in saving money and improving yields and we believe this discovery will help with both.

Phosphorus deficiency is probably even more critical in Africa than it is in Asia… This means Pup1 may have its biggest impact in Africa.

How will the research continue?

Having focused so much on the basic research, we now want to turn our attention to the application. IRRI and JIRCAS will train national breeding programmes to use marker-assisted selection and help them breed their own rice varieties with Pup1.

Sigrid and IRRI are mainly working with Asian national breeding programmes and we at JIRCAS focus more on African programmes such as the Africa Rice Center. Phosphorus deficiency is probably even more critical in Africa than it is in Asia, as phosphate fertilisers aren’t used nearly as much as they are in Asia. This means Pup1 may have its biggest impact in Africa.

We are also looking for new sources of tolerance to phosphorus-deficiency. One very exciting project involves West African rice (Oryza glaberrima) the father of the Nerica ™ (New Rice for Africa) varieties.

So far, we have found that this rice is very tolerant to phosphorus-deficient soils. It does have Pup1, but in addition harbours novel genes that also enhance performance on phosphorus-deficient soils.

We hope to discover a Pup2 in the years to come.

Links

 

Rooting for the key to more phosphorus for rice

 Comparative genomics in cereals, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Rice  3 Responses »
Sep 072012
 

Preparing rice root samples (Photo: IRRI)ALL IN THE ROOTS: A plant’s roots are a marvellously multitalented organ. They act as fingers and mouths helping plants forage and absorb water and nutrients. They act like arms and legs offering a sturdy base of support so a plant doesn’t keel over. They help store food and water, like our stomach and fat cells. And in some plants, can spawn new life – we leave that to your imagination!

That is why it is of little surprise that this multitalented organ was the key to discovering why some rice lines yield better in phosphorus-poor soils, a puzzle whose answer has eluded farmers and researchers… until now.  And even better, the findings hold promise for sorghum, maize and wheat too. Please read on!

 In search of the key – The Gene Trackers
In 1999, Dr Matthias Wissuwa, now with the Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), deduced that Kasalath, a northern Indian rice variety, contained one or more genes that allowed it to grow successfully in low-phosphorus conditions.

For years, Matthias made it his mission to find these genes, only to find it was as easy as finding a needle in a genetic haystack. He teamed up with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and with GCP’s support, the gene trackers were able to narrow the search down to five genes of interest.

“We had started with 68 genes and within three years, we had narrowed in on these five candidate genes. And then, one-by-one, we checked whether they were related to phosphorous uptake,” recollects Dr Sigrid Heuer, senior scientist at IRRI and leader of the team that published the discovery in Nature in August 2012.

Sigrid Heuer at a rice phosphorus uptake demonstration field in The Philippines.

“In the end we found that if a certain protein kinase gene was turned on in tolerant plants like Kasalath, then those plants would perform better in phosphorus-deficient soils.”

They named this protein kinase gene PSTOL1, which stands for Phosphorus Starvation Tolerance. “When we put this gene into intolerant rice varieties that did not have this gene, they performed better in phosphorus-deficient soils.”

The importance of phosphorus
Rice, like all plants, needs phosphorus to survive and thrive. It’s a key element in plant metabolism, root growth, maturity and yield. Plants deficient in phosphorus are often stunted.

Sigrid explains that whereas phosphorus is abundant in most soils, it is however not always easily accessible by plants. “Many soil types bond tightly to phosphorus, surrendering only a tiny amount to plant roots. This is why more than half of the world’s rice lands are phosphorus-deficient.”

Farmers can get around this by applying phosphate fertilisers. However this is a very expensive exercise and is not an option for the majority of the world’s rice growers, especially the poorer ones –the price of rock phosphate has more than doubled since 2007. The practice is also not sustainable since it is a finite resource.

By selecting for rice varieties with PSTOL1, growers will be less reliant on phosphate fertilisers.

How it works: unravelling PSTOL1 mechanics
In phosphorus-poor soils, PSTOL1 switches on during the early stage of root development. The gene tells the plant to grow larger longer roots, which are able to forage through more soil to absorb and store more nutrients.

“By having a larger root surface area, plants can explore a greater area in the soil and find more phosphorus than usual,” says Sigrid. “It’s like having a larger sponge to absorb more water.”

A rice variety — IR-74 — with Pup1 (left) and without Pup1 (right).

Although the researchers focussed on this one key nutrient, they found the extra root growth helped with other vital elements like nitrogen and potassium.

Another by-chance discovery was that phosphorus uptake 1 (Pup1), the collection of genes (locus) where PSTOL1 is found, is present within a large group of rice varieties.

“We found that in upland rice varieties – those bred for drought-prone environments – most have Pup1,” says Sigrid. “So the breeders in these regions have, without knowing it, been selecting for phosphorus tolerance.”

“When thinking about it, it makes sense as phosphorus is very immobile in dry soils, therefore these plants would have had to adapt to grow longer roots to reach water deeper in the soil and this, at the same time, helps to access more reservoirs of phosphorous .”

Breeding for phosphorus tolerance, and going beyond rice
Using conventional breeding methods, Sigrid says that her team introduced PSTOL1 into two irrigated rice varieties and three Indonesian upland varieties, and found that this increased yields by up to 20 percent.

“In our pot experiments,” she added, “when we use soil that is really low in phosphorus, we see yield increases of 60 percent and more. This will mean growers of upland rice varieties will probably benefit the most from these new lines, which is pleasing given they are among the poorest rice growers in the world.”

Read how Indonesian researchers are developing their own breeds of upland rice with the PSTOL1 gene

Sigrid also sheds light on broadening the research to other crop varieties: “The project team is currently looking at Pup1 in sorghum and maize and we are just about to start on wheat.”

Building capacity and ensuring impact
Like all GCP projects, this one invests as much time in building capacity for country breeding programmes as on research.

Sigrid and her team are currently conducting the first Pup1 workshop to train researchers from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. They will share molecular markers that indicate the presence of PSTOL1, techniques to select for the gene, as well as for new phosphorus-efficient varieties.

Breeding for phosphorus-efficient rice in the Philippines.

“The aim of these workshops is to take these important tools to where they are most needed and allow them to evolve according to the needs and requirements of each country,” says Dr Rajeev Varshney, GCP’s Comparative and Applied Genomics Leader. “Breeders will be able to breed new rice varieties faster and more easily, and with 100 percent certainty that their rice plants will have the gene. Within three to five years, each country will be able to breed varieties identical to those that growers know and trust except that they will now have the Pup1 gene and an improved ability to unlock and take up soil phosphorus.”

Joining hands in collaboration
This IRRI-led project was conducted in collaboration with JIRCAS and the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRAD) working with the Indonesian Centre for Rice Research. Other partners included: Italy’s University of Milano, Germany’s Max Planck Institute in Golm, the University of The Philippines at Los Baños, USA’s Cornell University and University of California (Davis and Riverside), Brazil’s EMBRAPA, Africa Rice Center, Iran’s Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and University of Dhaka in Bangladesh.

Links

Sigrid’s presentation at the GCP General Research Meeting 2011

On common ground – A longstanding association

 Funders, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 082012
 

SDC and GCP

Today, we catch up with SDC’s Carmen Thönnissen (pictured). She walks us through the whys of Switzerland’s continued funding to GCP that has spanned nearly the Programme’s entire lifetime.

We were …drawn to GCP’s upstream–downstream connections, and its pre-conceived product delivery path. GCP produces global public goods, with a clear focus on strategic research for development, while also addressing important upstream research elements in crop science such as gene discovery and marker validation. In addition, GCP already had a Product Delivery Strategy to guarantee downstream application.

The way GCP uses and ‘bundles’ resources within and beyond CGIAR, then as now, is attractive to us as a meaningful approach, promising good value for money.”

GCP’s work is very results-oriented and pragmatic, forging partnerships followed by concrete actions to address bottlenecks in research for development in molecular crop breeding, without ruling out conventional breeding.

Carmen Thönnissen is Senior Advisor, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Corporate Domain Global Cooperation of the Global Programme for Food Security. Through the years, SDC has been a consistent GCP funder. Today, Carmen gives us some insights into this longstanding relationship.

Tell us briefly about SDC and its funding to GCP
SDC is the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, affiliated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Government.

We’ve funded GCP since 2006 with an annual contribution of 450,000 Swiss francs – a total of 1.9 million so far.

SDC provides GCP core unrestricted funds at Programme level, meaning that SDC does not tie its funding to specific GCP projects, giving GCP discretion over these funds.

Why does SDC support GCP?
We share a long history with GCP, going as far back as the Programme’s ‘pre-birth’.

Starting in 2001, CGIAR adopted a more programmatic systemwide approach and endorsed the concept of Challenge Programmes. Between 2002 and 2005, SDC actively supported this process and the emerging Challenge Programmes.

In 2005, SDC reviewed its support to CGIAR and identified SDC priority regions, research priorities, and guiding principles for its unrestricted funding to the CGIAR system.

From this review, SDC decided to invest 30 percent of its core unrestricted funds to several CGIAR Systemwide and Challenge Programmes, one being GCP.

The Challenge Programmes were perceived as results-oriented, poverty-relevant and responsive to the CGIAR reform process of that time. They were also partnership-oriented, with transparent communication strategies.

Several points convinced SDC to invest in GCP, and I’ll mention just some of these. One was GCP’s focus on crops in marginal areas and on drought tolerance in sub-Saharan Africa, and South and Southeast Asia. These overlap with SDC’s own thematic and geographical priorities.

We were also drawn to GCP’s upstream–downstream connections, and its pre-conceived product delivery path. GCP produces global public goods, with a clear focus on strategic research for development, while also addressing important upstream research elements in crop science such as gene discovery and marker validation. In addition, GCP already had a Product Delivery Strategy to guarantee downstream application.

The way GCP uses and ‘bundles’ resources within and beyond CGIAR, then as now, is attractive to us as a meaningful approach, promising good value for money. Back then, SDC was interested in the exploration of plant diversity and the application of advanced genomics and comparative biology to advance breeding of the main staple crops grown by resource-poor farmers, which was the very objective of GCP.

Our funds were intended to be used to increase the exploratory implementation of new research tools in applied breeding programmes to produce improved drought-tolerant crop varieties.

We liked GCP’s structured approach of a Global Access Policy backed by guidelines on public–private sector partnerships and addressing intellectual property.

We also found the ‘suite approach’ proposed by GCP attractive, since at that time, very little was being done in these fields by CGIAR. We were drawn to the mix of a research component – on the impact of modern and integrated breeding approaches on productivity in developing countries, plus a service component aiming to disseminate knowledge, resources and technology, alongside lab services and capacity building.

GCP’s work is very results-oriented and pragmatic, forging partnerships followed by concrete actions to address bottlenecks in research for development in molecular crop breeding, without ruling out conventional breeding.

You mentioned common SDC–GCP thematic and geographic scope. Are there other areas where the missions of SDC and GCP overlap?
SDC has a focus on genetic resource improvement, and also supported the CGIAR Systemwide Programme on Genetic Resources, as well as the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

Supporting GCP is in line with SDC’s internal guidelines on Green Biotechnology. Among other things, we avoid single-donor initiatives, instead working within larger programmes that not only have a clear focus but also aim to strengthen developing-country capacity.

GCP’s work is very results-oriented and pragmatic. GCP plays a strong facilitating role in forging partnerships, which is followed by concrete actions, services, tools, methods, and so on, to address the bottlenecks identified by the research-for-development network with the aim of supporting molecular crop breeding for various crops, regions and partners, without ruling out conventional breeding.

SDC shares the view that Green Biotechnology, including genetic modification, can never fully replace conventional breeding, but it can be an important tool in improving plant-breeding programmes.

What outcomes are you expecting from this support?
To mention just a few, improved accessibility to modern breeding tools, methods and approaches for the developing world, plus enhanced capacity for developing-world partners on using these tools, as well as them knowing their rights and obligations regarding access to, and use of, plant genetic resources and related tools.

We also hope to see improved services for breeders, including learning materials and information on new resources for crop breeding. The long-term outcome we’d like to see is improved crop varieties, more resistant to abiotic and biotic stresses.

What are some of the lessons learnt from investing in GCP?
The importance of a strong programmatic orientation and the role of an honest broker in effective partnerships: GCP plays the role of enabler and facilitator, while its research partners are the actors.

Investing in GCP enables us to project a clear flow from upstream to applied research – with capacity building included – in the critical areas of food security and climate change.

Relevant links

Policies 

Blogposts

Bird’s eye view from the Board

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 042012
 

The GCP community, its labours and joys

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain...GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding. GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders. I think GCP has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme, and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

Seatbelts on please! Time to take a tour with Andrew, for an ‘aerial’ view of GCP from the very  ‘top’.

Please meet Andrew Bennett (pictured), the Chair of GCP’s Executive Board. Among other responsibilities, he is also President of the Tropical Agricultural Association, UK, chairs the SciDev.Net Board, and previously chaired the CIFOR Board. He was formerly Executive Director of the Syngenta Foundation and Director of Rural Livelihoods and Environment at the Department for International Development (DFID, UK) where he was responsible for professional advice on policy and programmes on livelihoods, natural resources, environment, sustainable development and research. Andrew has worked on development programmes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

Today, Andrew shares his perspectives on GCP’s work, its impact, the challenges, the community GCP has built, and the role of the Board. Please read on…

When was the GCP Board established, and what is its profile and role?
The Board was set up in mid-2008 towards the end of the first phase of the Programme. A review recommended that there be a fully independent Board, comprising people who had no conflict of interest with the Programme to facilitate decision-making.

Board members have between them a wide variety of skills and backgrounds, ranging from expertise in molecular biology to development assistance, socioeconomics, academia, finance, governance and change management.

We are committed to the role that can be played by science in development, and to the Programme. We have offered advice and helped the Programme’s Consortium Committee and management refocus the Programme. By all accounts, they seem happy with how things have evolved.

Because GCP is hosted by CIMMYT, the Board does not have to deal with any policy issues. That is the responsibility of the Consortium Committee. Our role is more to provide advice and to help with decision-making and implementation, which is great as we’ve been able to focus on the Programme’s science and people.

How long have you been involved with GCP?
Since the Board was established in 2008.

What does the GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’ – mean for you?
It means that all our undertakings are geared towards producing crop varieties that are tolerant to a range of environments, as well as being socially acceptable and appealing to farmers and markets.

How do you upgrade the planting material farmers have by fortifying it to combat the biotic and abiotic stresses? Half the challenge is breeding and selecting good material, and the other half is ensuring delivery of tools to breeders and new planting materials to farmers.

So GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders.

Why is GCP’s work important, and what does it mean for food security?
People who are food-secure have access to adequate food at all times to maintain healthy active lives. There are two sides to making this happen – access and availability.

GCP is increasing the number of varieties and lines tolerant to the conditions farmers are facing. What we cannot do is put money in the hands of poor people. If we supply people with the means to produce sustainable and healthy crops, they will have the means to produce food for themselves, and a means of making an income.

GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding.

For you, what have been the major outcomes of GCP so far?
GCP has shown that it is possible to form very productive partnerships across CGIAR institutes and advanced research establishments and those countries that have less scientific capacity. I think it has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships. GCP has also shown public researchers can work very well with the private sector. The public sector has the means to build a lot of capacity.

I think GCP has demonstrated that it is possible to establish molecular breeding programmes in those parts of the world that do not have well-developed scientific infrastructure.

Just a little bit of money – relatively speaking of course – clear vision, and good leadership, can go very far, and produce tremendous benefits and progress.

GCP has also identified the constraints that we have to work within – the challenge of phenotyping and restrictions on the movement of genetic material to other parts of the world. GCP has paid particular attention to intellectual property [IP] because the information and materials GCP produces must remain in the public domain. IP in the international arena within which the Programme operates must span potentially conflicting national legislation regimes. It is a very complex area.

‘Challenge’ is in GCP’s name. What are the major challenges that the Programme has so far overcome?
Quite a number and more could be on the horizon. GCP has overcome some of these challenges. They include the problem of poor-quality phenotyping. This has been addressed through a comprehensive capacity-building programme, including laboratory and field infrastructure, and the training of research support staff in the developing-country field sites where GCP projects are being implemented.

Another challenge was focusing the Programme. At the start, the Programme was spread too thin, spanning too many crops and partners, but these have been progressively narrowed down in Phase II.

This narrowing is no mean feat in the public sector. In the private sector, you start with, say, a hundred projects, then after six months you halve them. After a year, you are down to 10 projects and you put all your resources into making those 10 ‘winners’ work. In the public sector, you keep the entire hundred going for three years, then you look for funding to keep them all running for another cycle. It’s a different culture: the private sector is product-oriented, while some aspects of the public sector emphasise contributing to the growth of knowledge and information, and to building or maintaining relationships, without necessarily asking about their usefulness and benefits to society.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

What are the future challenges that the Programme must overcome to remain sustainable?
There are many GCP activities that can be integrated into the new CGIAR Research Programmes. However, there may be other activities such as capacity building and IP management which – at this point in time – appear somewhat less easy to integrate into the new CGIAR Research Programmes.

There is also a danger – not unique to GCP but with all aid-assisted programmes – that when the money ends, everything will disappear into the archives. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen in this instance.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
GCP was born at a time when we thought molecular biology could solve all our problems quickly and efficiently. What I think we are finding is that molecular tools –while extremely useful – cannot entirely replace understanding the agronomy and phenotypic activities. Molecular biology alone is not a panacea or silver bullet for crop breeding; but it is a valuable tool.

Then there is capacity building: molecular breeding is a tool that you can only use if you have the capacity. Many parts of the world will require a lot of capacity building and support to be able to use the tools. GCP and its Integrated Breeding Platform can make a modest contribution to meeting this need through the proof-of-concept GCP Research Initiatives for selected crops and countries and establishing communities of practice.

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain.

What has been the most enjoyable aspect of your position with GCP?
Without a doubt, attending the General Research Meetings has been the most enjoyable, meeting scientists from a wide range of institutes, backgrounds and countries.

These scientists come together because they share the same interests and a common goal. There’s a lively buzz of conversation. It is good to hear about what they are doing, what their aspirations are, and to learn from the knowledge and posters they bring to the meeting.

You don’t have to be a cutting-edge scientist to listen to these people whose enthusiasm is palpable. They are passionate, have a strong sense of community, enjoy what they are doing, and are just as keen to share this knowledge and enthusiasm. It’s all highly infectious!

Relevant links

 Newer Entries
cheap ghd australia