Livestock genomes not enough

You may remember we nibbled a Science paper entitled Time to Tap Africa’s Livestock Genomes which got a lot of traction in the press a few weeks ago. It has also generated an interesting discussion at the DAD-Net forum, set off by the following contribution by Dr Ilse Köhler-Rollefson of the League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development, which she has kindly allowed us to reproduce here.

Congratulations on this article – it is certainly great to have these issues raised in a high profile scientific journal! However, after reading the summary about it presented in the BBC interview, I am a bit worried about the notion of the need to “tap Africa’s animal genetic resources” before they have become extinct. For one, they are already being “tapped” by African pastoralists — and have been tapped for hundreds or thousands of years — to enable survival in inhospitable areas. One crucial aspect of pastoralist livestock is the ability to walk for ever and thereby access and then ingest and metabolize vegetation that would otherwise be of no use to humans. Their contribution to food security is thus enormous. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no scientific research has ever focused on “walkability.”

But what we urgently need to realise is that many of the wonderful characteristics of African and other pastoralist livestock are not a question of genetics, but of learned behaviour, as Saverio Kraetli has shown in his seminal studies of WoDaaBe cattle breeders in Niger. It is therefore a fallacy to believe that we can “fix” certain weaknesses of Western or high-performance breeds by introducing the genes of African livestock into them.

This does not make it less urgent to conserve pastoralist livestock, as food security for people in marginal areas remains a major concern. In their Biocultural Community Protocol, the Samburu have testified how replacement of the Red Massai sheep with Dorper has undermined their drought resistance.

African livestock breeds and their unique traits can only be conserved in living systems, using agroecosystem approaches as spelled out in one of the Strategic Priorities for Action of the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources. Consequently we need enabling policies for livestock keepers, much more than additional research at the genome level — which would be unable to address complex traits such as walkability.

Peking presumably planning to plant potatoes

A short and barely comprehensible article in the People’s Daily Online alerts us to the fact that Beijing is to become a “seed-planting capital in the next few years,” on the back of its “currently reserved over 390,000 national-class germplasm resources, ranking second in the world.” Apart from what that means, I also wonder whether the planned planting programme will include potatoes, whose cultivation in China is apparently plagued by “inadequate germplasm resources for cultivar development, the lack of high quality seed potatoes” and various other problems.

GM research: is there no alternative?

Some strange juxtapositions lately. On the one hand, we have Bruce Stutz writing in the Yale Environment 360 that private companies working on GM crops remain reluctant to allow independent research on their products. On the other we have Pamela Ronald and a colleague opposite the editorial page of the New York Times, saying that we need lots more GM, preferably in the public domain.

I don’t know enough about the intrigues around independent research to say more than that it seems pretty rum that scientists can’t get their hands on the stuff they need to assess GM crops for themselves, as opposed to for the manufacturers. Pamela Ronald’s arguments are, however, a lot more filling. And a lot less convincing. For example, she talks about engineering sorghum resistant to drought and to the parasitic weed Striga. Before we worry too much about drought-resistant sorghum, though, might it not be a good idea to just help farmers move from their very thirsty maize crops to the altogether more frugal sorghum? And is there really a need to engineer Striga resistance when a locally proven simpler technology already works perfectly well and tackles more than one pest, in more than one crop? It isn’t glamorous. But it works. Now. Not at some unspecified time in the future. Golden rice puts in an obligatory appearance, and there are cameo walk-ons for high-protein potatoes and high zinc sorghum. In other words, the usual suspects.

What is novel is that Ronald, who engineered flood resistance into rice, and her co-author James E. McWilliams, devote most of their space to the papaya engineered to resist ringspot virus, which saved the papaya industry on Hawaii. They say that:

The real significance of the papaya recovery is not that genetic engineering was the most appropriate technology delivered at the right time, but rather that the resistant papaya was introduced before the backlash against engineered crops intensified.

I don’t think that is its real significance at all. I think its real significance is that it shows what a dedicated individual researcher — Dennis Gonsalves — can do when not working for The Man. I know this not from Gonsalves himself, but from a blogger’s write up of a talk Gonsalves gave, which we nibbled here a couple of weeks back. There are some interesting insights there into the differences between public and private research, which is why I found this paragraph from Ronald and McWilliams so interesting:

As it now stands, opposition to genetic engineering has driven the technology further into the hands of a few seed companies that can afford it, further encouraging their monopolistic tendencies while leaving it out of reach for those that want to use it for crops with low (or no) profit margins.

That really is one of those nice counterfactual propositions. Why is it out of reach? Because of the cost of regulation? In which case, could it be that the cry of the private companies against the time and cost of regulation is really crocodile tears? Maybe it really suits them, because only they have sufficiently deep pockets. I wonder whether public opinion would be more favourably disposed to genetically engineered crops if they were produced as public goods, to be distributed at cost to the deserving poor? Is it just profit that makes GM crops unacceptable, no matter what people might say about health or the environment?

Papaya ringspot resistance might be OK, because there is no alternative. But for “problems” where we already have perfectly good solutions, I don’t believe it matters whether that research is in private or public hands. The pure financial cost is too high, especially when we haven’t invested enough in the alternatives.

Nibbles: African success, Tef biotech, Hybrid rice, Livestock data, Wine grapes, Uphoff on SRI, Blog Carnival