N.P. Louwaars

Valorizing science: whose values?

Valorization—essentially, the creation of economic value—has become a new maxim of modern research, in particular for areas with a strong link to technological development. This trend is a result of the growing influence of the market economy in public policy, which has asserted that public investments into science should generate returns that benefit the economy. Indeed, research managers are evaluated increasingly on the basis of various economic outputs—similar to the bonus‐driven contracts of financial managers—which can include the number and value of patents and license contracts, the number and value of research contracts, and the number of publications. This growing emphasis on valorization goes hand‐in‐hand with the concept of ‘the enterprizing university’ (Williams, 2003). The growing emphasis on intellectual property (IP) rights as crucial elements in the valorization trend, their exploitation, and the inevitable secrecy that is required to protect them, clash with the traditional scientific values of openness, transparency and the sharing of knowledge. Moreover, too strong a focus on exploiting the economic benefits of research impinges on potential societal benefits, particularly those that would improve conditions for poorer communities or developing countries. This discussion, about the use of knowledge generated by public research, is one of the tensions between science and society, and is an important target for convergence work to reconcile different views. However, as our experience has shown, there are major challenges to convergence, notably when stakeholders might not easily agree on the problem to be resolved. The trend towards valorization remains strong. Consider, for example, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI; The Hague, the Netherlands), which was established in 2002 by the Dutch Government “to get the best from genomics” and “to ensure that society and [the] economy benefit from the breakthroughs enabled by genomics” (www.genomics.nl). NGI sets ambitious goals for its research projects, which …

A solution to the controversy on plant variety protection in Africa

African countries can establish a plant variety protection system that supports commercial seed systems without negatively affecting smallholder farmers.

Plant breeding and diversity: A troubled relationship?

Plant breeding collects, induces and rearranges genetic diversity followed by selection. Breeding may contribute to diversity in farmers’ fields or significantly reduce it. History has numerous examples of both. The diversity of many crops have gone through domestication, dispersal and modernization bottlenecks. Between these major decreasing processes, diversity has picked up through different evolutionary processes, and plant breeding affected by policies. Major negative effects of plant breeding on diversity have been recorded following the modernization bottleneck, but alternative breeding strategies have come up as well, both in the formal system and in the interphase between formal and farmers’ seed systems. Multiline breeding and participatory plant breeding are introduced as examples to also analyse effects of current developments in technology and policy. This paper intends to shed some light on the questions: how will current developments in technology and policy affect crop genetic diversity? Are we heading for a new bottleneck—either a molecular or a policy bottleneck, or a combination of both? Or could the future become more diverse? We look at the relationship between breeding, policies, and crop genetic diversity in farming systems with a birds-eye view. Notably because of current policy trends we warn for a new diversity bottleneck.

Seed science in the 21st century: rights that scientists have to deal with

Seed researchers, like anybody else working with materials containing genes, have to deal with a variety of rules. Their ‘freedom to operate’ does not only depend on intellectual property rights but also on various rights arising from biodiversity policies and possibly traditional knowledge. The most relevant are, however, patents on both materials and biotechnologies. It is in this field that recent developments indicate that the pendulum of ever-increasing levels of rights has started to swing back a little. This is due to recent court cases both in the USA and Europe, and emerging political debates in various countries. After describing the general policy arena involving national sovereign rights, private rights and ‘group-rights’ we focus on recent trends in the patent system. Seed scientists hardly even had to deal with such rights in the past, but in the 21st century they need to be aware of their implications.