1. What crops do you maintain breeding programs for?
The number of NCRA institutions (of the 12 states) with plant
breeding programs includes the following: Soybeans - 11; Wheat
(spring and winter) - 11; Corn - 9; Oats - 8; Apples - 4; Potatoes
- 4; Turfgrass - 4; Barley - 3; Dry Edible Beans - 3; Sorghum
- 3; Alfalfa - 2; Birdsfoot Trefoil - 2; Blueberries - 2; Canola
- 2; Pearl Millet - 2, Sweet corn - 2; Strawberries - 2; and one
each of the following crops: Asparagus, Beets, Bluegrass, Carrots,
Celery, Creeping Bentgrass, Cucumber, Festuloium, Flax, Flowers,
Grapes, Horseradish, Kura Clover, Lingonberries, Onions, Orchard
Grass, Ornamental Grasses, Ornamental Plants, Peaches, Pearl Millet,
Peas, Pop Beans, Range Grasses, Raspberries, Red Clover, Small
Fruits, Small Grains, Snap beans, Sunflower, Tomatoes, and Woody
Landscape Plants.
2. Does your AES release varieties? How do you release them?
Do you PVP? Do you enter into an agreement with a public marketing
agency or a private entity? Do you charge royalties in state and/or
out of state? How are royalties shared on your campus, i.e., who
gets what portion and how can it be used?
All 12 NCRA states release varieties as public varieties, nonexclusive
brands or by licensing as exclusive varieties to marketing groups
or private companies based on the approach that makes the most
sense.
All states PVP, directly or as part of a marketing agreement with
another entity, either with or without Title V within the same
AES; some file for all varieties, other states not for all varieties.
Nine states do charge royalties regularly. One state charges royalties
on horticultural crops only; one charges on foreign varieties;
and one charges no royalties.
Royalty sharing is quite divergent among states. Several states
pool the department and breeder/breeding program share to support
future research. In some states, income is returned to the unit
with the breeding program and administered to support future breeding
and crop variety development. In some states, the sharing follow
the university intellectual property guidelines for patents and
other intellectual property.
The amount returned to the developing breeder varies from three
to 33% which may be shared with co-inventors or is used to support
the breeding program.
3. For germplasm, do you execute a material transfer agreement
with each seed lot sent?
MTAs being used more frequently, but not uniformly at most universities.
Depends on commodity and PI within a university. Others encourage
its use, but seldom used. Some sent by breeders, others sent by
Research Foundation; other states working on a form. Some states
plan to develop more than one MTA depending on crop and other
factors.
4. Do you treat genetically engineered germplasm or varieties
differently than those developed via traditional techniques? If
so, please tell us how.
At most universities, genetically engineered germplasm and varieties
are handled differently. Traditional varieties are handed by Plant
Variety Review Committee (or similar committee in AES) but patented
material is handled by Vice Chancellor for Research/Office of
Technology Transfer, etc. Several states have not had to address
the issue yet since they have not released any genetically engineered
germplasm.
5. Are you prepared to police/protect AES releases? Do you
use molecular marker or other technology to prove ownership?
No, or very limited protection appears to be the rule. In a couple
of states this is done by the university or the Foundation Seed
Program and the State's Attorney General's Office.
Two states use molecular markers to prove ownership. One other
state will use it when the occasion (litigation) warrants. Other
states do not.
6. Does your College or AES maintain Crop Improvement Association
and Foundation seed programs?
Most states have a crop improvement association. In most states,
crop improvement associations are not part of the university but
are housed on the campus in a few cases.
Foundation seed programs are more variable; some are managed by
departments on campus, others by separate agencies.
7. If you have guidelines/policies for releasing varieties/germplasm,
would you please send the web site address or share a hard paper
copy with me now and bring 30 copies to the NCRA meeting.
Hard paper copy of guidelines were submitted by KS, MI, MO, NE,
ND, SD, and WI.
8. Has your AES patented any germplasm?
Patenting is administered by the university, not the AES in most
cases. Nine universities have patented germplasm. In most cases
this has been horticultural crops/turfgrass. One state plans to
patent novel genes developed through molecular biology/genetic
engineering projects.
9. Who makes the decision on the release and type of protection
for germplasm and varieties? Does the AES maintain control of
these processes?
In most cases, AES makes decisions to release varieties while
a central university office gets involved in patents. In some
cases a central university office gets involved in variety releases
and patents.
10. What other issues should be placed on the agenda?
Restrictions on the exchange of germplasm slows progress and impacts
programs. A clear distinction must be made between germplasm and
varieties. Everyone should be aware that utility patents do not
include a research exemption, whereas, PVP allows research (and
use as a parent) with that variety. Does AES maintain control
of these processes?
Although the decision and policy differs among states, the most
interesting and perhaps unknown aspect will be whether universities
continue the mandate for variety development and release or whether
the focus will be on germplasm enhancement and fundamental genetic
studies, including the training of graduate students. The golden
age of university domination of variety development and release
for most field crops is over since there is no way to compete
with the private seed industry. Thus, the battle may be already
lost. There will be differences in opinion and policy in this
regard among experiment stations, but discussion will be helpful.
Should we or how do we give preferential treatment to grower groups
who support research? Should we share intellectual property/royalties
with commodity groups which support genetic and variety development
research? How do we share germplasm and intellectual property
rights among states? If a graduate student's thesis research leads
to a patented variety, should the graduate student be part of
patent and receive royalties? Would policy be different for international
students? How do various institutions go about selecting exclusive
marketer for their crop varieties?
1. What crops do you maintain breeding programs for?
IL - Apples, corn, horseradish, oats, small fruits, soybeans,
sweet corn and wheat.
IN - Apples, corn, oats, sorghum, soybeans and wheat.
IA - Corn, grasses, oats and soybeans.
KS - Alfalfa, canola, grain, sorghum, soybeans and wheat.
MI - Asparagus, blueberries, celery, dry edible beans (with USDA),
oats, onions, peaches, pearl millet, proso millet, potatoes, soybeans,
strawberries, sugar beets (USDA), tart cherries, turfgrass (a
future program), and wheat.
MN - Alfalfa (USDA/ARS), apples, barley (spring), birdsfoot trefoil,
blueberries, bluegrass, corn, flowers, grapes, kura clover, ornamental
grasses, perennial ryegrass, potatoes, soybean, strawberries,
turf, wheat (spring), and woody landscape plants.
MO - Birdsfoot trefoil (USDA), corn (USDA), small grains, soybeans,
tall fescue, and turf.
NE - Barley, beans, canola, corn, forage and range grasses, grain
sorghum, nuts, oats, ornamental plants, peas, soybeans, turfgrass,
vining crops and wheat.
ND - Currently have active plant breeding programs in HRSW, HWSW,
durum, 2-row barley, 6-row barley, corn inbreds, dry edible bean,
flax, oat, potato and soybean.
OH - Apples, blueberries, corn, raspberries, soybeans, strawberries,
tomatoes and wheat.
SD - The South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station maintains
active breeding programs for corn, forage, oats, oilseeds (sunflower,
flax, and a testing program for other oil seeds such as canola),
soybeans, spring wheat, turf and winter wheat. In addition, the
Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) has breeding programs in
the horticulture area, which includes bushes, grapes on a cooperative
program with the University of Minnesota, shrubs, trees via selection,
and some activities in the stone fruits area as well as raspberries
and apples. The program dealing with breeding vegetables was recently
terminated.
WI - Field crops: alfalfa, barley, beets, festuloium, kura clover,
oats, orchard grass, red clover, sweet corn, trefoil, wheat. Horticultural
crops: carrots, cranberries, creeping bentgrass, cucumbers, lingonberries,
onions, pop beans, potatoes, snap beans.
2. Does your AES release varieties? How do you release them?
Do you PVP? Do you enter into an agreement with a public marketing
agency or a private entity? Do you charge royalties in state and/or
out of state? How are royalties shared on your campus, i.e., who
gets what portion and how can it be used?
IL - Yes, varieties are released. Release can be as public variety,
nonexclusive brand labeled line, or exclusive variety. The decision
to release a variety is made by the Plant Variety Review Committee
(PVRC) based upon data presented by the breeder. The PVRC is a
university committee (not departmental or college) and members
are appointed by the Vice-Chancellor for Research. At the time
of release, the PVRC also considers the mechanism of release,
research and development fees, and whether protection such as
PVP should be sought. PVP applications are filed for some varieties,
but not all. In some cases we do but in others we do not. For
some public varieties (especially soybeans) a "marketing
group" is formed of seedsmen handling that variety. No, royalties
are not charged. Research and development fees to offset the cost
of research and development of the variety are charged and are
determined at the time of release. Essentially all lines released
in the past five years have had research and development fees.
For out-of-state sales 50% of the R and D fees stay in the state
where the seed was produced and 50% are returned to the state
where the line was developed. (This is included as part of the
release announcement.) Research and development fees are collected
by the crop improvement association, and 10% of the fees go to
the crop improvement association for their role in record keeping
and fee collection. The remaining 90% is returned to the department
where the commodity originated, with 30% retained by the department
and 70% returned to the breeding program in that commodity. The
departmental share is used to support a scholarship for a plant
breeding graduate student and for other expenses in support of
plant breeding in general. The portion returned to the breeding
program is used to support the program in that commodity. If other
programs, such as plant pathology or molecular genetics, contribute
to variety development the funds are shared with those programs
also. None of the feed collected go to individuals. The situation
is different in the case of a utility patent. Distribution of
royalties from patents follows the university-wide regulations
for inventions, where the distribution of net proceeds is 40%
retained by the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for research, 20%
to the unit (college and/or department), and 40% returned to the
inventor(s).
IN - Yes, in wheat and soybeans as named public varieties and
for company licensing. We PVP producer ready varieties. We have
an agreement with Ag Alumni Seed, a nonprofit association, to
market producer ready varieties. Royalties are charged on named
publics and licensed varieties. Royalties are shared equally between
a) university, b) department(s) of origin and c) inventor(s).
Use of royalty is a discretion of recipient.
IA - We use the university IP office/research foundation (ISURF)
and an affiliate (CAR - committee for agricultural development)
to multiply the seed. We charge royalties with the net being divided
into 3 - 1/3 to ISURF, 1/3 to the AES (shared 50:50 with the department),
and 1/3 to the investigator.
KS - Yes. As named public varieties on a nonexclusive basis and
to marketing groups of farmer/growers. The reason for the marketing
groups is to get greater utilization of K-State developed varieties
and not to generate royalties. We do PVP but it takes 2-3 years
to obtain and Kansas seed law provides no protection until the
PVP is issued and by then interest in the variety may be waning.
We do not charge royalties.
MI - Yes, we do release varieties. We release in at least three
different ways: publicly (nonexclusively); on a limited access
basis to marketing groups; or exclusively to private companies,
depending on what is thought to represent the greatest public
good. In most cases we do use PVP because it is believed to be
in the best interests of the certified seed program (the historic
vehicle for seed production and distribution) as well as for the
overall public good. However, in some cases, it may not be used
if the cost of PVP is thought to exceed the value obtained from
it. Yes, we either charge a royalty (in the case of exclusive
or limited access release) or a research assessment in the case
of nonexclusive (public) release. Royalties are shared (1/3-1/3-1/3)
according to University (Board established) policy, while research
assessments almost always are returned to the breeding project.
Even where one-third of the royalties go to the plant breeder
and one-third to the academic unit, they have not been used for
personal reasons (up to now) (at least, not for non-retired faculty),
but two of the one-third shares (inventor and academic unit) have
been put back into the respective research project. Horticultural
varieties have been protected by plant variety protection, as
well as by trademarks, in the case of cherries.
MN - Yes, through all of these ways. Because of the great variety
of horticultural production systems and crop-specific approaches
to germplasm, we use whatever public or private approach makes
most sense for the crop. Releases are approved by the Crop Variety
Review Committee (CVRC) appointed by the MAES and notification
of each release is administered through the MAES. Yes, unless
an exception is requested by the breeder and approved by the CVRC.
Such agreements are possible, but not required. Yes, for barley,
wheat soybean and oat as general releases. Royalties from exclusive
releases are negotiated at the time a license is granted. This
varies depending on the type of release. For general releases,
royalty income is combined into a Variety Development Fund. For
exclusive releases to date, income is put into separate funds
and administered primarily in support of future breeding and variety
development of that crop. The Variety Development Fund will be
administered by an appointed Board and, when the Fund reaches
a predetermined value, will use the earnings of the Fund primarily
to support future breeding and variety development, as well as
general research/education needs in the MAES.
MO - Yes; almost all release are exclusive. Yes, but question
its usefulness unless we are willing to enforce. Yes, our forage
varieties (tall fescue) have been exclusively released to a private
company. Wheat lines have been exclusively released to a private
company. Soybean lines have been marketed exclusively by Missouri
Premium Varieties (MPV). Yes. Missouri Seed Improvement serves
as collection agency and they take 10% off the top. The breeder
gets 10%, patenting and licensing office gets 5%, MAES gets 10%,
and remainder goes back to the breeding program. In some cases,
we have licensed technology from certain genetic suppliers to
have access to innovative germplasm. The genetic suppliers will
also share in the royalties. The proportion that goes to genetic
suppliers is negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
NE - The Nebraska AES releases varieties in all of the mentioned
categories, except corn. We have a policy document that defines
the policy and procedures. Release decisions are made by the AES
Director upon recommendations from Variety Release Committees.
The decision whether to PVP is made on each individual release.
Selected public varieties in some field crops are marketed through
a public marketing license arrangement. We also may license with
private entities, particularly on patented, horticultural crops.
We charge royalties on patented varieties, again primarily horticultural
crops. Royalties are shared according to the University Royalty
Policy which is a 1/3 to the patent office and 1/3 to the administrative
unit. The originating department and the Agricultural Experiment
Station share the return as part of the originating unit, but
in practice, we have been returning the entire share to the department
in recent years. Departments may handle this as totally flexible
money and use as they wish in support of the departmental programs.
We also get a research fee on public varieties marketed through
the public marketing agency. This fee goes to the originating
unit and is used to support the research, primarily breeding activities
for the crop involved.
ND - Releases varieties in all breeding programs except corn where
inbreds are released. These varieties are all PVP with Title V
except for oat and flax which are PVP without Title V. NDSU has
not entered into any agreements with private entities. Royalties
are charged in foreign countries. They are also all charged in
the U.S. and the state where the commodity group has supported
it. By state law, at least 3-% of the royalties are made available
to the plant breeder for his/her personal use. Twenty percent
is provided to the NDSU Research Foundation. The rest is negotiated
between departments and research centers based on the amount if
input into the development of the specific variety. This amount
is used at the discretion of the department chairman but is almost
exclusively used to support further research.
OH - Sometimes. Yes, Ohio Seed Improvement Association, AGRA,
other private firms if requested. Yes, on both counts. 85% returned
directly to the research program, 15% as the breeders share which
is divided among co-inventors through discretion of the PI.
SD - Yes. The release mechanism varies by species. For the major
crops of spring wheat, winter wheat, oats and soybeans, the materials
are released to the Foundation Seed Stocks Division (FSSD), which
is affiliated with the University; the seed is distributed to
producers through our Crop Improvement Association. Corn and other
oilseeds are also distributed through FSSD to companies at a set
price. In the horticultural area, we have arrangements with the
South Dakota Nursery Association and other South Dakota associations
for distribution. The material is generally released directly
to them. Yes, we PVP the major crops primarily spring wheat, winter
wheat, and soybeans. We have not had the policy to PVP oats. This
decision is made by the Crop Cultivar Release Committee, which
is a committee within the departments of Plant Science and Horticulture,
Forestry, Landscape and Parks (HFLP). Yes, we have a limited number
of market agreements with private entities. At this time, we have
an agreement with Canada that is relative to the distribution
of material within Canada. In the United States, the policy has
been that the materials are freely distributed to other public
and private breeding programs. When material is released in the
agronomic area, we do not charge a royalty except where we have
marketing agreements with a private industry. We will collect
royalties on material that is distributed by other states that
require royalty collection. There is a royalty collected on the
material released from the horticultural program. The HFLP Department
determines the amount of distribution of royalties that have been
collected.
WI - Yes via Material Transfer Agreements and PVPs. Agreements
are made with the Wisconsin Crop Improvement Association and also
private companies. Royalties are charged. If the agreement does
not involve the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), then
the royalties are returned directly to the faculty members program
or department via various budgeting mechanisms. If the agreement
does involve the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, then the
royalties are collected by WARF; and for the first $100,000, the
distribution is 70% to the research program, 20% to the individual,
and 10% to the Graduate School. After $100,000 is collected, the
distribution is 65% to the Graduate School, 20% to the individual,
and 15% to the Department. The funds that are returned to the
faculty program can be used in anyway to support the research
program of the faculty member.
3. For germplasm, do you execute a material transfer agreement
with each seed lot sent?
IL - This varies somewhat with commodity and whether or not the
germplasm has been formally released. For some commodities, entries
in regional evaluation nurseries (cooperative research among breeding
programs) can be exchanged without material transfer agreements.
In some commodities, "codes of ethics for germplasm exchange"
have been developed and may substitute for a material transfer
agreement.
IN - That is our intent. We have a standard form (Materials Use
Agreement).
KS - We will likely go to MTAs as soon as we develop a form.
MI - We do not have a uniformly applied material transfer agreement
for use in sharing germplasm. Plant breeders are encouraged to
use some type of material transfer agreement that they feel will
protect both their interests as well as that of Michigan State
University. Although we in Crop and Soil Sciences have discussed
(considered) the desirability of developing a common uniformly-applied
form, we decided against it, partly because of disagreement and
uncertainty about whether one form would meet the needs of all
plant groups. Attached are two material transfer agreements used
by plant breeders in Crop and Soil Science (dry edible beans and
potatoes) and Horticulture (fruit).
MN - Probably not always, but MTAs are being used more frequently,
especially for specialty types or value-added traits. We are working
on a standard form.
MO - Our goal is to have scientists use the UBMTA. To date, we
are only partially successful.
NE - We try to use a material transfer agreement with each seed
lot. A copy of our agreement is on pg. 7 of the Nebraska Variety
Release Policy document which was distributed at the NCRA meeting.
ND - In recent years there has been a material transfer agreement
sent with each lot of seed. Some of the agreements are sent by
individual breeders while the Research Foundation may also send
some. They have the same basic requirements.
OH - Each PI handles it differently, some use MTAs, other don't;
it depends on their relationship with the industry and the requestor.
Each PI has their own version of the MTA.
SD - At the present time, we do not execute a material exchange
agreement for the exchange of seed with either private or public
plant breeding entities. The germplasm is released freely to both
private and public breeding programs. This is done primarily at
the discretion of the plant breeder and the material is distributed
under the plant breeding code of ethics. We are engaged in material
exchange agreements with individual companies dealing with specific
technology relative to where we are incorporating their technology
into our germplasm.
WI - Faculty members are encouraged to use MTA's but in practice
these are seldom used. This policy is under review.
4. Do you treat genetically engineered germplasm or varieties
differently than those developed via traditional techniques? If
so, please tell us how.
IL - Yes, genetically engineered germplasm or varieties are handled
differently. The Plant Variety Review Committee does not handle
patented material. Anything that is covered by a utility patent
is handled by the Research Technology Management Office in the
Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research.
IN - Yes, producer ready varieties are generally reviewed by a
committee in agriculture. Genetics, germplasm and associated technologies
are not reviewed in AG but are reviewed by the Office of Technology
Transfer and the University Patent and Copyright Committee (Ag
has representation on committee).
IA - As yet we have not marketed any transformed germplasm except
for a minor species where the IP was tied up with a contract with
a company before the research was initiated.
KS - Not applicable yet; Has not happened yet, but we have signed
an agreement with Monsanto on Roundup-resistant ready genes in
soybeans and we will have to abide by the agreement which is not
specific.
MI - To this point, we have not released any genetically engineered
varieties, though one or two genetically engineered genes have
been released. While this has been done, they have not gone through
the same committee evaluation and release procedure, but have
been largely negotiated directly with and through the MSU Office
of Intellectual Property in a partnership arrangement with commercial
interests. When, and if, a genetically engineered variety is released,
we would guess that the process would be more similar to our general
variety release procedure. But when this happens, it may well
be handled differently and, thus, plow new ground (setting a new
precedent).
MN - Most likely they would be treated somewhat differently because
germplasm often is covered by a utility patent and prior research
agreements that includes a right of first refusal to license.
MO - We have not developed any genetically engineered varieties.
NE - We haven't had to address the problem of genetic engineered
release as yet.
ND - Currently NDSU does not have any genetically engineered germplasm.
OH - No.
SD - At the present time, we do not have genetically engineered
germplasm or varieties. However, the molecular biology group is
close to having genetically engineered soybeans and wheat. It
is our intent to go through the University's patenting system
with this material. At this point, the University's rules dictate
the collection of royalty funds and their distribution. The royalty
is divided equally into thirds and distributed to central administration,
the college and the individual investigator. The policy at the
college level is to distribute one half of the monies received
from patent royalties to the department of origin and the remaining
half remaining at the college level. As I have already indicated,
this is a model that is being developed because we do not have
a test for the genetically engineered germplasm, but we will have
material we will be dealing within the near future.
WI - rDNA developed germplasm: This germplasm is treated the same
way as germplasm developed by classical breeding methods.
5. Are you prepared to police/protect AES releases? Do you
use molecular marker or other technology to prove ownership?
IL - This decision would be made by the University legal counsel.
We are not aware that we have used this technology.
IN - Protection/policing activity is very limited. To date we
have not used technology to prove ownership.
IA - Yes but we have not made major efforts yet. Virtually all
germplasm is specialty with a limited usage. In one case there
is an exclusive license with a company who may or may not police.
(Based on their past history, they probably do).
KS - No. The state of Kansas has decided that the University would
need to take legal action and we will not likely do that. We have
no PVP protection while application is pending which may take
2-3 years and by then varieties may be on the decline or replaced.
MI - The best protection at the present time for MAES releases
for agronomic varieties is PVP and availability to seed users
through certified seed growers in Michigan or other states. We
use the Title V provision of the PVP to restrict sale by variety
name to a class of certified seed since it prohibits the sale
of uncertified seed by variety name. Although this system provides
a type of inherent or built-in protection, it is not foolproof.
It can be violated by "brown bagging" and selling uncertified
seed by variety name. Although this would be a violation of the
release policy as well as the Michigan Seed Law and the Federal
Seed Act, it is not uniformly enforced. I personally feel that
the MSU Office of Intellectual property should be asked to follow
up cases where violation is known or reported and provide additional
protection by threatening litigation in selected cases. Although
the Michigan Department of Agriculture will often warn violators,
they do not always do this or follow through with threats of action.
Although we may not have up to this time used molecular marker
technology to prove ownership, such technology is available and
is widely used throughout the seed industry. Thus, it can be used
when the occasion (litigation) warrants. Violation of ownership
rights for horticultural varieties/ germplasm would be pursued
through litigation through the MSU office of Intellectual Property.
MN - To some extent. Warnings have been placed in Ag publications
indicating enforcement may be initiated via the State Department
of Agriculture. Molecular markers might be used to prove ownership,
but do not think it has happened so far.
MO - This has been a concern of ours since there has been reluctance
in the past to enforce infringements on varieties with PVP. In
the future, the Patenting and Licensing office will be more forceful
when it comes to protecting CAFNRs intellectual property. We do
use molecular markers to prove ownership and show uniqueness when
protecting plant varieties.
NE - We are not really organized to enforce PVP. Our University
Patent Office would be capable of enforcing patents, if necessary.
We are in discussion with our Crop Improvement Association regarding
the possibility of transferring PVP enforcement to that organization.
ND - Upon release, the ownership of varieties developed by the
AES that have PVP with Title V are transferred to the NDSU Research
Foundation which pays the costs of the application. With the transfer
of ownership, the Research Foundation assumes responsibility for
policing the releases.
OH - OSU isn't prepared to police and we don't use marker technology
to prove ownership since the results can vary.
SD - Yes, we are prepared to police and protect material released
by the AES. At the present time, the South Dakota Department of
Agriculture assists us to a small extent in the role of protection.
They watch for violations of the distribution, but will not aid
with any enforcement at this time. We are not using molecular
marker technology to prove ownership, but we are using electrophoresis
to identify varieties as well as materials presented through PVP.
WI - Yes, this is done via the Foundation Seed Program and the
State's Attorney Generals Office. Molecular markers are used,
but only rarely.
6. Does your College or AES maintain Crop Improvement Association
and Foundation seed programs?
IL - The Director of the AES is the officer for seed certification.
This duty had been officially delegated to the crop improvement
association. The crop improvement association is an independent
not-for-profit organization. Foundation seed is produced and handled
by for-profit organization. Both organizations are independent
and separate from the AES and the college.
IN - The Indiana Crop Improvement Association and Ag Alumni Seed
Association are "stand alone organizations" and located
off-campus. We have a Memoranda of Agreement with each to establish
specific working arrangements.
IA - Yes, both.
KS - Yes to both. The Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station has
been the official seed certifying agency in Kansas since late
1930s and we designate the Kansas Crop Improvement Association
as the seed certifying agency on an annual basis. We maintain
foundation seed increase programs at Manhattan in the Department
of Agronomy and at two Research Centers.
MI - Although the MSU/MAES does not maintain foundation and certification
programs, we do maintain very close relationships with the Michigan
Crop Improvement Association which administers both a certification
and foundation seed program. Its authority for certification is
delegated by the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Its role
in producing, maintaining, and distributing foundation seed is
by virtue of its close cooperation with Michigan State University
which recognizes it as its official foundation seed agency for
MSU agronomic variety releases.
MN - Yes.
MO - The Missouri Crop Improvement Association is not part of
the University per se. It is an autonomous organization with its
own Board of Directors. The Dean of CAFNR, however, approves the
Missouri Crop Improvement Association on an annual basis to serve
officially as the state of Missouri's seed certification agency.
The Foundation Seed Program is part of CAFNR. Recently, our Foundation
Seed Program has performed services for the private sector. This
has greatly improved the bottom line in terms of maintaining a
positive cash flow.
NE - The Foundation Seed program is administered through the UNL
Agronomy Department. The certification program is delegated to
the Nebraska Crop Improvement Association. We are investigating
the possibility of transferring PVP enforcement to the Crop Improvement
Association.
ND - At NDSU there is a very strong foundation seedstocks program
which works with grower groups (North Dakota Crop Improvement
and Seed Association) at each county. The county extension agent
is heavily involved with the county groups. The allocation to
specific counties is done by a committee representing the seedstocks
project, chairman of plant sciences, and a seed grower from each
of four districts in the state.
OH - We don't maintain either. Ohio has two separate organizations:
OSIA and Ohio Foundation Seeds that are independent of OSU.
SD - The College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences has an
excellent working relationship with the South Dakota Crop Improvement
Association (SDCIA). Their executive secretary is a member of
our Plant Science Department, and the Board of Directors meets
regularly with the College administration. SDCIA has a granting
program that grants funds primarily to the plant breeding programs
and for the purchase of equipment. In addition, they have support
areas such as plant pathology and molecular biology. As I have
already indicated, we have a strong and good working relationship
with our FSSD. The FSSD is affiliated with the University, but
as a quasi, independent identity. FSSD is managed and operated
through a Board of Directors of which five are producers and five
are University administrators. The actions of the board are to
determine pricing policy, outlay of capital assets, and policy,
while their manager conducts the day-to-day operations. We have
an excellent working relationship with the board, and they conduct
a relatively small granting program of funds to the plant breeding
programs.
WI - The College does maintain a Foundation Seed Program (Agronomy
Department) and a Potato Seed Certification Program (Plant Pathology
Department). The Wisconsin Crop Improvement Association is a private
nonprofit organization separate from the University, but housed
on campus.
7. If you have guidelines/policies for releasing varieties/germplasm,
would you please sent the web site address or share a hard paper
copy with me now and bring 30 copies to the NCRA meeting.
IL - A draft of a policy statement proposed several years ago
will be mailed.
IA - Will bring details to the meeting on this.
KS - We have guidelines but they will be revised during next few
months.
MI - We do have an MAES policy on variety release and can be made
available for both the Web as well as for the NCRA meeting. A
copy of this policy, along with suggested modifications, is attached.
MN - Not yet.
MO - Will bring copies of our MOAES 1995 policy, which is currently
being revised, to the NCRA meeting.
NE - Variety Release Policy is attached.
ND - See NDSU Ext. Circular A-520: North Dakota Seed Increase
Program.
OH - Yes, we have guidelines and you should have copies that I
gave you.
SD - Yes, I will bring 30 copies of the policy.
WI - Guidelines for release of varieties and germplasm: The guidelines
for release of germplasm involve several administrative levels.
First, each faculty member is required to disclose intellectual
property with our office of University of Industry Relations,
Graduate School, University of Wisconsin-Madison. If federal funds
have been associated with the faculty member's laboratory during
the time the intellectual property was developed, the intellectual
property is offered to WARF for patenting. If no federal funds
are associated with the faculty member's program, then the intellectual
property rights rest with the faculty member. Other exceptions
would be the contractual agreements between a private company
and the University for support of research. If WARF accepts the
responsibility for the plant variety or germplasm, they would
patent and then license the plant germplasm to the Wisconsin Crop
Improvement Association, and/or make other arrangements for marketing
this intellectual property. Currently, AES is not involved directly
in the marketing decisions made by WARF. Faculty members are consulted
by staff at WARF in developing the marketing plan. Before plant
varieties are released, the scientific information about the variety
is reviewed by faculty committees in the departments involved.
8. Has your AES patented any germplasm?
IL - The university patents germplasm, not the AES. Germplasm
has been patented by the university.
IN - Germplasm developed in Ag Research Programs has been patented
by the University.
KS - Have patented resistance genes but not germplasm.
MI - While no agronomic varieties per se have been patented, several
horticultural varieties have been patented (plant patent). I am
not aware if any germ plasm has been patented.
MN - Yes, indirectly through utility patents which have been administered
by the Office of Patents and Technology Marketing, University
of Minnesota.
MO - Yes, buffalo turfgrass variety called Mobuff.
NE - We have patented turfgrass varieties and vegetable crop varieties,
and some ornamentals.
ND - NDSU has patented a potato variety and some ornamentals.
We are tending to go more toward PVP.
OH - None that I'm aware of.
SD - At this time, the AES has not patented any germplasm. I do
not foresee in the immediate future where we will patent any germplasm
with the exception of novel genes developed through the molecular
biology/genetic engineering projects, as indicated in item four.
WI - Yes.
9. Who makes the decision on the release and type of protection
for germplasm and varieties? Does the AES maintain control of
these processes?
IL - The Plant Variety Review Committee makes these decisions
on PVP, in consultation with the breeder, the AES and the University
Research and Technology Management Office in the Office of the
Vice-Chancellor for Research. For patents, the individual investigator
contracts the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research. The
PVRC will provide advice to individual investigators, if asked.
The AES director serves as an ex officio member of the university
Plant Variety Review Committee.
IN - AES makes the determination on release of producer ready
varieties. The decision process on genetics, germplasm and associated
technologies is initiated by inventor, Department Head, reviewed
by the University Office of Technology Transfer and approved/rejected
by the University Patent and Copyright Committee. However, it
is possible that an individual may release information via, for
example, publication without initiating steps for protection and
thus the material could be "in the public domain" in
an unprotected mode. AES has a position on the University Patent
and Copyright Committee.
IA - ISURF, CAD, and the AES jointly.
KS - AES does based on the Field Crops Variety Review Committee
recommendation to Director.
MI - For agronomic varieties, the University makes the decision
as to the type of release which is specified by the release action.
In my opinion, the plant breeder actually makes the decision about
which release action is to be made, with consultation and advice
of the committee structure and departmental chair. However, this
procedure must be approved by the departmental chair, experiment
station director, and vice-president for Finance and Operations.
Thus, the MAES does maintain control of this process.
MN - The CVRC is appointed by the MAES.
MO - This information is in our MOAES seed policy document. A
copy is being mailed to you. Yes.
NE - The recommendations for release of varieties comes from the
individual Variety Release Committees that must be approved by
the Director, AES. The AES Director appoints the member of the
Variety Release Committee.
ND - The recommendations for variety release and type of protection are made by a variety release committee. See Circular A-520. The final decision is made by the director of the experiment station.
OH - The PIs and the Cultivar Release and Distribution Committee. Only by virtue that the CVRDC is an interdepartmental committee with external stakeholders and it is chaired by the chair of HCS. The Director of OARDC must approve all minutes and transactions of the CVRDC.
SD - At the present time, the policies for the release of variations and germplasm is through a Crop Cultivar Release Committee housed in the Plant Science and the HFLP Departments. These committees make recommendations to the AES Director who ultimately makes the decision regarding the release. It is the policy of the committees to justify the release of material to the AES Director. The control point in the University system with regard to cultivar and germplasm releases is at the College level within the AES. This control is the Dean of Research Office, with regard to patenting and other protection mechanisms beyond plant variety protection.
WI - The University of Wisconsin policies are consistent with the federal laws and regulations, which state that the "University of Wisconsin has first right to retain title to any inventions conceived or made in whole or in part during federally funded research." Thus, for each plant germplasm or variety it must be decided if federal funds have been involved, and if they are then WARF has first right of refusal to the plant germplasm or variety. This is discussed in point seven above. (See handout on University of Wisconsin-Madison, Intellectual Policies and Procedures for University Research).
10. What other issues should be placed on the agenda?
IL - Restrictions on the exchange of germplasm slow progress. A clear Distinction must be made between germplasm and varieties. Everyone should be aware that utility patents do not include a research exemption, whereas, PVP allows research (and use as a parent) with that variety.
IN - The practice of exchange of materials - how has it changed, how is it impacting programs.
MI - Although the decision and policy will most certainly be different from state to state, I believe the most interesting and perhaps unknown aspect of the variety release issue will be whether universities will continue the mandate they have had in the past for variety development and release or whether they will focus on germ plasm enhancement and fundamental genetic studies, including the training of graduate students. It seems clear to me that the golden age of university domination of the variety development and release scene for most field crops is over and that there is simply no way to compete with the private seed industry. Thus is in my opinion a battle that is already lost, at least in the long run. There will obviously be differences in opinion and policy in this regard among experiment stations, but it should be an interesting and helpful discussion.
MN - How to give preferential treatment to grower groups who support research and how to share germplasm and intellectual property rights between states.
MO - If a graduate student's thesis research leads to a patented variety, should the graduate student be part of patent and receive royalties? Would policy be different for international students? How do various institutions go about selecting exclusive marketer for their crop varieties?
SD - None.
WI - Does AES maintain control of these processes? In the past, AES has not been extensively involved in this process. Currently AES deans are developing guidelines in cooperation with the Graduate School, Faculty, Departments, Wisconsin Crop Improvement Association, and WARF.
4/29/99