Hamm Survey Results (2002)

Hamm Survey Analysis (2002)

1. For which crops do you maintain breeding programs?

NCRA institutions maintain the following crops in their plant breeding programs: Nuts - 11; Soy Beans - 11; Wheat (Winter, Spring and Durum)- 11; Corn - 9; Oats - 8; Apples - 5; Barley (6-row and 2-row) - 4; Dry Bean - 3; Forage - 3; Forage - 3; Landscape (trees, bushes, and plants) - 3; Oilseeds (flax, sunflower, canola) - 3; Potatoes - 3; Grain Sorghum - 3; Turf - 3; Alfalfa - 2; Beet - 2; Blueberry - 2; Raspberries - 2; Small Fruits - 2; Strawberry - 2; Sweet Corn - 2; and one of each of the following crops: Bean; Carrots; Celery; Cranberries; Creeping Bent Grass; Cucumber; Festolium; Flowers; Grapes; Horseradish; Kura Clover; Lingonberries; Onions; Orchard Grass; Peach; Pop Beans; Rice (potentially); Range Grasses; Red Clover; Snap Beans; Stone Fruits; Sweet Cherry; Tart Cherry; Tomatoes; and Trefoil.

2. Does your SAES 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 sell seed and/or charge royalties in state and/or out of state? How are revenues from seed sales or royalties shared on your campus, i.e., who gets what portion and how can it be used?

· Eleven experiment stations release varieties. In the remaining state, the university’s research foundation is responsible for release of varieties.

· The decisions regarding how to release varieties come from many different places. However, all states release as public varieties, non-exclusive brands, licensing as exclusive varieties to marketing groups, or to private companies based on set policies.

· Nine states said they PVP extensively; two states said they sometimes PVP, or that it varies upon each individual release; one state said that it does not PVP.

· For those that PVP, most use a combination of public and private marketing; the amount of varieties they file for varies from state to state.

· Eight states charge royalties; two states do not charge royalties; one state only charges royalties on international releases, potatoes and soybeans; one state only charges royalties when material is distributed by other states that require royalty collection, as well as on material released by their horticulture program.

· Royalty sharing is divergent among states:

o Nine states send money to the scientists/breeders.

o Two states send money to their Crop Improvement Associations.

o Four states send money to their Research Foundations.

o Two states send money to their university.

o Four states send money to their SAES.

o Six states send money to the programs.

o Six states send money to the departments.

o Four states involve other offices.

· The amount of money sent to any of these areas differs among the states. Many divide it by thirds (1/3).

3. For germplasm transfers, do you execute a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) with each seed lot sent?

· Six states execute MTAs with each seed lot sent.

· Three states do not use MTAs.

· Two states vary as far as executing MTAs, depending on the circumstances.

· One state said they encourage use of MTAs, but they are rarely used.

4. Do you treat genetically engineered germplasm or varieties differently than those developed via traditional techniques? If so, describe the difference.

· Six states do not treat genetically engineered germplasm or varieties differently than those developed via traditional techniques.

· Five states have not released genetically engineered germplasm; yet two of the fivc are close to releasing some genetically engineered varieties.

· One state does treat genetically engineered germplasm differently.

o The Plant Variety Review committee does not handle patented material. Anything handled by patents is handled by the Research Technology Management Office (associated with the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research).

5. Are you prepared to police/protect AES releases? Do you use molecular marker or other technology to prove ownership?

· Six states are not prepared to police/protect their AES releases; six states are ready to protect their releases.

· Most states do not use techniques to prove ownership. Of those that do, one state said that it uses fingerprinting, another mentioned that markers are used, but rarely.

6. Does your College or AES maintain Crop Improvement Association and Foundation Seed Programs?

· Three states said that they have Crop Improvement Associations.

· Eight states said that they maintain Foundation Seed Programs.

· Most Crop Improvement Associations and Foundation Programs not part of the college or AES have close ties to the College or AES.

7. If you have guidelines/policies for releasing varieties/germplasm, provide the web site address.

· Most states have some guidelines in place for releasing varieties/germplasm. However, no states have websites set up, as of yet, to provide this information.

· Three states are revising their current guidelines.

8. Has your AES patented any germplasm?

· In four states, the university has patented germplasm (one of these only has patents on potato cultivar and ornamentals).

· In four states, the AES has patented germplasm (one of these only has patents on turf grass, vegetables, and ornamentals).

· Four states said that neither the AES or the University has patented any germplasm.

9. Who makes the decision on the release and type of protection for germplasm and varieties? Does the AES maintain control of these processes?

· Many states allow their Variety Release Committees to make decisions about the release and protection of germplasm and varieties. There is also some collaboration with breeders, AES directors, and departments/faculty.

· The AES plays a major role in most of these processes.

Hamm Survey Results (2002)

1. For which crops do you maintain breeding programs?

IA - Corn, oats, soybeans

IL - Apples, corn, horseradish, oats, small fruits, soybeans, sweet corn and wheat.

IN - Soybeans, wheat, barley, oats, sorghum, corn, and apples

KS - Wheat, Grain Sorghum, Soybeans, Alfalfa

MI - Breeding programs: soft white winter wheat, potato, dry bean (with USDA), turf, blueberry, celery, peach, soybean (germplasm only), strawberry, sugar beet (USDA), tart cherry, sweet cherry, and cucumber

MN - Corn, oats, barley, wheat, soybeans, turfgrass, forage, flowers, landscape plants, small fruits, apples and potatoes.

MO - Soybeans, wheat, corn. Potentially rice germplasm in the future.

ND - Hard red spring wheat, durum wheat, six-rowed barley, two-rowed barley, corn, soybean, flax, oat, potato, dry edible bean, and hard white wheat.

NE - Barley, beans, canola, corn, forage and range grasses, grain sorghum, nuts, oats, ornamental plants, soybeans, turfgrass, and wheat.

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.

IA - The Experiment Station does not release varieties. The Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) is responsible for releases. ISURF does not PVP varieties. Seed is sold in state and out of state and royalties are charged. Royalties are shared ½ to the scientist, ½ to the ISURF and ½ to Experiment Station.

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 - Wheat and soybeans are released as public varieties and for company licensing. We have used PVP ready varieties. AES has an agreement with the Agricultural Alumni Seed Improvement Association, a nonprofit association, to market producer ready varieties. We are also exploring other ways to license germplasm with Ag Alumni. Since both the AES Director and Associate Director serve on the Ag Alumni Board, there is good communication relationship. We have also licensed germplasm or traits with a private marketing firm that has agreed to license the trait in a nonexclusive manner with seeds men for incorporation into elite lines of soybeans. Royalties are charged on named public and licensed varieties and traits. Royalties are shared equally between the university through the Office of Technology Commercialization, the department(s) of origin, and the inventor(s). Use of the royalty is at the discretion of the recipient.

MI - Yes, varieties are released. All releases are protected by either PVP or plant patents. Protected releases are licensed through the MSU Office of Intellectual Property to public non-profit organizations such Michigan Crop Improvement Association and Michigan Potato Commission or to private seed or nursery companies. Royalties are associated with all licensed varieties or germplasm. The distribution of royalties is by standard MSU policies. Generally, 0.33 is distributed to the MSU Foundation, 0.33 to the academic units (College and Department) and 0.33 to the inventor(s). In most instances, departments return royalties to the appropriate breeding program.

KS - Yes. We use a variety of mechanisms depending on the variety: public releases, limited releases through non-exclusive and exclusive licensing agreements. Yes. Both. We sell foundation seed to seed producers. We do not charge royalties at this time. Revenues from the sale of foundation seed are retained 100% by the Foundation Seed Program, which is run by the Agronomy Department.

MN - Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Inventor 1/3, VP for Research 1/3, College/Dept/Inventor's program 1/3.

MO - Yes. Via 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. Yes. See above. Yes to all. Varies, but normally 10% to Seed Improvement Assoc. for handling licensing, any IPR share, 10% to breeder, 10% to AES, and remainder to breeding program.

ND - Cultivars are released by the AES , usually as public, non-exclusive releases. PVP’s are sought for each cultivar. We have implemented an agreement with a public marketing agency to distribute GM cultivars. With the exception of potato and soybean, cultivars generally do not carry a "royalty" or research fee in-state. Royalties are collected if the cultivar is sold internationally. To date, royalties are distributed in the following percentage: 20% to the NDSU Research Foundation, a minimum of 30% to the breeder(s), 25% to the originating department(s), and 25% to the College/AES. Revenues are used to support the research program.

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.

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 transfers, do you execute a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) with each seed lot sent?

IA - No. The ISURF uses the ISU Research and Development Agreement with each seed lot.

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 - Yes. We have a standard material transfer agreement.

KS - Yes.

MI - Material transfer agreements (MTA) are generally executed with each seed lot exchanged. The execution of MTAs is the responsibility of the individual breeders.

MN - No.

MO - Yes.

ND - MTA’s are executed for each seed request.

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.

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, describe the difference.

IA - ISURF does not release any genetically engineered germplasm.

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 - Producer ready varieties are reviewed by a committee of faculty and administrators within the School of Agriculture. The release and licensing arrangements are handled by AES. Genetics, germplasm, novel traits, and other related technologies first require the signing of a disclosure form by the inventor(s), department head(s), and AES administrator. This then goes to the Purdue University Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC) for patent and licensing considerations. This is frequent communication between AES and OTC. To date we have not released any genetically engineered varieties, but we do have an agreement with Monsanto.

KS - No.

MI - MSU has not released genetically engineered varieties. GMO germplasm is handled by standard methods and in compliance with appropriate federal and state regulations.

MN - No.

MO - No, only difference would be in the agreements/share in IPR.

ND - GM materials of nonregulated crops are handled in the same fashion as non-GM crops, except for marketing of the cultivar. Care is taken to ensure than accidental co-mingling of seed does not occur, and testing for the presence of GM in conventional crops is ongoing.

NE - We are currently developing policies in anticipation of releasing genetically engineered varieties in the near future.

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 SAES releases? Do you use molecular markers or other technology to prove ownership?

IA - ISURF is prepared to police releases. Finger printing is used 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 - Our protection/policing activities have been minimal. We have not used any molecular markers for this purpose. We do have a Master Agreement with the Indiana Soybean Board that covers the patenting and licensing of technology. In some cases, they have made efforts to police/protect a technology discovered by university faculty and students, in part with soybean check-off funds, and licensed to them for commercialization.

KS - No to both questions.

MI - Yes, audit provisions are included in all licenses. Currently, we have not used molecular markers to prove ownership.

MO - Yes, via our Seed Improvement Assoc. We have not to date, but may.

MN - Not yet.

ND - The NDSU Research Foundation, which, upon release becomes the owner of the cultivar, has, and will continue to, enforce inroads on ownership and illegal sale of seed. All tests to prove ownership will be used.

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.

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 SAES maintain Crop Improvement Association and Foundation seed programs?

IA - Yes.

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 - In Indians there is both a Crop Improvement Association and the Agricultural Alumni Seed Improvement Association. We have a memoranda agreement with both and a close working relationship. However, they are “stand alone” organizations. Ag Alumni is involved in seed production (mainly popcorn genetics that has its origins at Purdue and is under a licensing arrangement) as well as soybean seed and corn hybrid production, usually under contract with private seed companies. The Crop Improvement Association is primarily involved in seed certification, but also works with us in the development and testing of a soybean, CystX .

KS - We do maintain a Foundation Seed Program, and we work closely with the Kansas Crop Improvement Association.

MI - The Michigan Crop Improvement Association and Foundation Seed is a public organization not housed on campus and with few official ties to MSU. MAES is a member on their Board of Directors.

MN - Yes

MO - Yes to both. The Missouri Seed Improvement Association is a separate entity, but cooperates with the MO AES. MO AES has it’s own Foundation Seeds program.

ND - The Foundation Seedstocks program is in the NDAES and works with the ND Crop Improvement Association, located in each county. This forms the basis of seed distribution on most released cultivars.

NE - The Foundation Seed Division is administered by the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. 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.

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, provide the web site address.

IA - None

IL - A draft of a policy statement proposed several years ago will be mailed.

IN - ???

KS - Currently under revision.

MI - We have standard policies for releasing germplasm. They are currently being updated and are not available on the web.

MN - Yes

MO - We have guidelines, are revising them, and once approved will be posted on the MO AES website. They are not posted now.

OH - Yes, we have guidelines and you should have copies that I gave you.

ND - To date, no policies are on the web.

NE - Variety Release Policy is attached.

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 SAES patented any germplasm?

IA - No.

IL - The university patents germplasm, not the AES. Germplasm has been patented by the university.

IN - Germplasm developed by agricultural faculty has been patented by the university.

KS - No.

MI - MSU is seeking patents for asexually prorogated fruit trees and bushes.

MN - Yes

MO - Yes.

ND - NDSU has patented one potato cultivar and some ornamentals. We may explore patenting as a vehicle in the future.

NE - We have patented turfgrass varieties and vegetable crop varieties, and some ornamentals.

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 SAES maintain control of these processes?

IA - ISURF and Experiment Station make the decision together but ISURF has final control of the process.

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 - A breeding committee makes a recommendation to an AES administrator who makes the final decision on the release of a producer ready variety. This is normally publicly released through Ag Alumni. In all other cases of germplasm and traits, the inventor(s), department head(s), and AES sign a disclosure statement which is then directed to the Office of Technology Commercialization for a decision on patenting and/or licensing arrangements with the private sector.

KS - Variety Release Committee(s), which includes representatives from the SAES and stakeholders around the state. A majority of the votes are held by University and SAES representatives, but the process operates on a consensus basis.

MI - The final release decision is made by the Vice President for the Office of Research and Graduate Studies. Reviews are conducted at the department and MAES level with input from MAES breeders, industries, and the MSU Office of Intellectual Property, with the final recommendation coming from MAES to the Vice President.

MN - Preliminary recommendations on method of release and protection of germplasm to the AES director are made by a faculty committee composed of plant breeders and industry representatives. The AES director passes his recommendation on the Office of Patents and Technology Marketing where the final decision is made.

MO - Breeder in conversation with AES and our MU OTSP office. Yes, unless it involves a legal agreement to exchange IPR. Then, our OTSP office has authority.

ND - The recommendation for release, including PVP, is made by a variety release committee. The make-up of this committee varies, with substantial involvement from the crop commodity organizations for each particular crop. The Director of the Experiment Station is responsible for making the decision to release.

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.

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).