New Agriculturist welcomes opinions and contributions from readers. Please email us with your comments on New Agriculturist and the subject matter featured. The Editor reserves the right to select communications for our e-mail @ page and to abbreviate communications for publication.

We hope that communications will stimulate debate on agriculture and rural development, and suggest topics for future coverage.

CSIRO Tropical Agriculture and PBR - a response to Bill Hankin's article entitled Plant breeders right's

While Bill Hankin is entitled to sympathize with the view that the idea of PBR or "plant patenting is abhorrent" it seems he has allowed this view to colour his examination of the case studies and led him to call into question the integrity of public servants in the PBR office. He has also made a more sweeping accusation of all agricultural research scientists that they are lodging "tenuous PBR ownership claims to generate funds".
I would like to refute these claims by using, as he did, the case of "Indus", for which we hold the Plant Breeders Rights (PBR). The germplasm did indeed originate in Pakistan and was obtained for our collection from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). On introduction to Australia as one of more than 100 accessions from USDA it was assigned the CPI number 108621. Hankin refers to this as an international accession number which is incorrect.
Hankin's main objection in this case, and others he quotes, seems to be to the granting of PBR following selection as defined in the PBR Act. CSIRO is a Government agency and, as such, is diligent concerning compliance with the law in Australia, including compliance with the PBR Act.
Hankin states "the (PBR) office should have required CSIRO to grow and trial "Indus" with CPI 108621." As 1987 was the year after introduction, these plants would be fairly close genetically to the original, whereas 1993 was after several years of trial and selection and is the variety registered and released. These varieties differ significantly in days to flower and tiller number. As a consequence the two seed lots are different and Hankin is incorrect in his assertions. In this case, as with every variety we release there is breeding input. Even when there is no hybridization, accessions grown in a new environment frequently contain genetic variations, and it is within these that selection takes place. Alternatively, selections are made from a range of accessions of the species. Both forms of selection are recognized in the PBR Act in Australia as being part of the breeding process.
As to Hankin's assertion of biopiracy, your readers should appreciate PBR taken out in Australia is only applicable in Australia and does not prohibit the growing of varieties by others in other countries. Australian PBR can only be exercised in Australia - there is no such thing as worldwide PBR and further, the grant of Australian PBR does not guarantee that PBR applications in other countries would be automatically granted.
The principal problem with Hankin's position of opposition to the patenting of DNA and the use of PBR, is that it excludes these varieties from enhancement and improvement, thus denying the grower countries improved revenue and a better environment.
Dr Elizabeth Heij, Chief, CSIRO Tropical Agriculture

We cannot get on the WWW here, so I had my wife in Georgia look you up. Here's her attached comments on your site.
I called up the "New Agriculturist" on the www. It looks really really great. This month the feature is the debate over patenting seeds that are developed by scientists. It drew me in. Very interesting. AND scary, in a way. They also had an article on Turkey. It is very colorful and very nicely arranged. Quite easy to get into. Too bad you can't get it there.
Jack Reeves, IITA

With regards to the article in last months Focus on section 'Taking PAAT in Trypanosomiasis control'

While it is true that FAO and IAEA collaborate, through the FAO/IAEA Joint Division, on tsetse and trypanosomiasis control in Africa, it is also true that the IAEA has not formally endorsed the PAAT concept, nor formalized its official participation. Members of the Joint Division have participated in activities of the PAAT Steering Committee, but their participation does not in itself imply agency endorsment of PAAT.
Thomas Tissue, IAEA

Greetings from Chennai.I have logged on to your new-agri web page on several occasions. Great job and I enjoyed it. Found some useful stuff too. In fact my daughter also found some useful stuff on water for her environment project.
Rathin Roy, Bay of Bengal Programme