Awards
2011 Subcommittee - NAPB Awards Committee Minutes
May 23, 2011
Minutes of August 15, 2010 NAPB awards committee were circulated and approved. They provided basis for discussion at this meeting.
Awards to be presented for 2011 were reviewed as follows:
Lifetime Achievement Award - Dr. Jules Janick
Dr. Janick is known for his involvement with plant breeding, horticulture and the history of agriculture. He received his BS from Cornell University in 1951, and his MS an PhD from Purdue University in 1952 and 1954. He and his students have carried out basic and applied research in genetic enhancement of apple and pear, ornamental plants, vegetables and medicinal herbs. Dr. Janick was founder and editor of Plant Breeding Reviews and Horticultural Reviews. He has co-edited a number of monographs and served as President of the American Society for Horticultural Science and has been a long time editor of both the Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science and HortScience as well as Editor -in-Chief of ASHS Press. Dr. Janick has had numerous publications and graduate students throughout the years.
Early Career Award - Dr. Sterling Brooks Blanche
Dr. Brooks has worked in cotton, corn and rice breeding programs for Louisiana State University AgCenter. He obtained his BS at Western Kentucky University in 1999. For a short time in 2001 he worked on a MS in Weed Science but soon changed to Cotton breeding at LSU with Dr. Gerald Myers where he obtained PhD in 2005. From there he became a medium-grain rice breeder with LSU AgCenter and was involved in the release of 8 cultivars. He has numerous publications and has been associated with 2.1 million dollars of grant funding since 2006. Currently he is overseeing cotton and corn development programs at the LSU Ag Center’s Dean Lee research station. He is active in graduate student training and is currently an Associate Editor of the Agronomy Journal.
Plaques will be handed out to both 2010 and 2011 award recipients this year on May 23rd during the PBCC/ NAPB Joint Session - Rita Mumm presiding
The Outstanding Plant Breeder Award was developed in 2011 and was presented to the committee for comment. This will be a new award for 2012.
Discussion was held to consider other potential awards. There had been a suggestion in the 2010 minutes that some awards might be given out every other year or every 3 years. The committee this year decided to plan for a new graduate student award that would be given every year and be ready for the 2012 meeting. It was decided that this award would be a Graduate Student Poster Award. The award criteria will be developed this year and announced to the membership when the Lifetime Achievement, Early Career, and the new Outstanding Plant breeder awards are announced. The intention of the committee is that the awardee be given a 15 minute presentation slot during the following meeting to present their research findings to the general audience.
We will also consider having an award in the future as we did this year for outstanding graduate student contributions to the meetings.
The committee also requests a name change from Awards and Nominations to Award since the nominations are handled by others.
Membership of the Awards committee was also discussed. The same question from last year was not resolved. The key issue is that attendance is always poor at the Awards Committee breakout session; however, identifying and selecting nominees is important to publicize the impact of plant breeding. The committee requests that members be appointed (by the President, VP, or EC) to this committee for a 3 year term. Three members should be appointed each year. This committee should show regional representation and possibly 1 to 2 students. Since only 3 people attended the 2011 committee meeting, we did not elect new officers. As needed, we will elect new officers from the “appointed” committee.
Sterling Brooks Blanche is the incoming Chair for the Awards Committee.
The committee decided to coordinate with the web editor and upload the award winners for each category along with their biographical sketch.
2010 Subcommittee - Awards
August 15, 2010
The former PBCC awards committee met and discussed how to structure and move forward as the National Association of Plant Breeders (NAPB) Awards Committee.
The committee voted to approve the change from PBCC to NAPB.
The committee recommended having six members that will serve 3 year terms. However, other NAPB members would be welcome to attend the committee meetings. There was also discussion about including a student and/or early career member on the committee. This would require changing the schedule so the Round-Table for early career people did not conflict with the committee meetings.
There will be a chair, vice chair and secretary. The vice chair will move to chair and the secretary will move to vice chair. This year a secretary will be appointed by the new committee.
There was discussion at the committee meeting and during the general meeting about the name for the “early career scientist award”. The final version will be “Early Career Award”.
As the next meeting will be in May of 2011, the time is short for the award nomination process. The committee recommended staying with the two awards
1. Life Time Achievement Award
2. Early Career Award
and not adding any other awards for 2011. There was discussion about what additional awards might be added in the future. The most popular was an “Outstanding Plant Breeder Award”. The committee will work on drafting the criteria for the this award with the plan to take nominations in 2012.
For 2011 nominations for the two awards will be open to both public and private breeders. The nominee will not have to be a member of NAPB, but hopefully winners will be encouraged to become members.
The recommended timeline for the 2011 award process was an announcement in mid October, reminder in January and a mid February deadline. The committee may have to be more pro-active than last year in encouraging nominations.
The committee approved the protocol where the award was announced at the annual meeting (for example 2011) and then the winners would be invited to participate in the Early Career Round-Table and/or give a talk at the next meeting.
Ways to provide a monetary component with the award were discussed. An NAPB member has inquired about establishing a fund for the awards. It was concluded NAPB first needed to have a stable account where money could be deposited over years. Providing free registration and/or money for lodging were also discussed.
The committee discussed how to publicize the awards and award winners. It was recommended to work with the NAPB Communications Committee. Press releases will be written in collaboration with the awardee’s public relations office.
There was also discussion about publicizing other organization’s awards that honor plant scientists.
2009 Subcommittee - Awards
These are the minutes of current activities of the subcommittee on awards. It is part of the Plant Breeding Coordinating Committee.
- Minutes on August 3, 2009
- Members Present
- Jodi Scheffler (Chair), Karen Moldenhauer (Vice Chair), Brooks (Sterling) Blanche (Secretary), David Stelly, Ann Marie Thro, Phil Simon, and Keith Woeste
- An Awards committee was formed at the 3rd Annual PBCC meeting, August 3-5, 2009 in Madison Wisconsin
- The sub-committee met and elected officers:
- Chair – Jodi Scheffler
- Vice Chair – Karen Moldenhauer
- Secretary – Brooks (Sterling) Blanche
- Other members include David Stelly, Ann Marie Thro,Phil Simon, and Keith Woeste.
- The committee reviewed the “Early Career” award that was offered this year and received input from Ann Marie and David. They discussed other possible awards to present in the future. Suggestions included:
- Early Career (Pre-tenure)
- Life Time Achievement
- Public Service
- Poster Award for Students
- There was discussion on making some type of award specifically for the private sector, but no conclusion was reached. The committee discussed the need for a lifetime achievement award, and all agreed that it would be a great addition. Further discussion involved comparisons between private and public plant breeders, and the difficulty comparing the two. Measuring the success/contributions of public and private breeders requires an entirely different set of criteria. Hence, the Public Service award. The committee did not reach a conclusion for naming #3, except that Public Service Award was not the best. We concluded with omitting #3 for 2010 and getting input on how to proceed. We decided to give awards for a) Early Career, b) Lifetime Achievement, and c) Best Student Poster at the 2010 meeting.
- The committee discussed ways to pay for the plaques and if we would give cash awards. There was also discussion on how to keep money for the awards, possibly by establishing an account to collect donations. Also, it was suggested that somebody look into the process of making these donations tax-deferrable.
- A timeline was then discussed for the awards process. The next meeting will be at Pioneer in Johnston IA August of 2010. We decided that members of the awards committee will have a final draft of the award descriptions and guidelines/timelines for the application process by January/February. We also discussed formulating a set of criteria for judging for each of the awards. This should be completed by the Jan/Feb deadline along with the award descriptions. We tentatively planned to send the award announcements and invitations to apply once by March/April and twice by June with a deadline for applications in early July.
- To publicize the award and solicit applications the committee considered sending the information to:
- Todd’s email list
- All experiment stations
- Our members list
- ARS
- NCCPB
- ASTA
- The format of the award application was considered and it was decided to look at other awards already offered such as the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, RTWG etc.
- The committee will do some independent investigation, and “do business” via e-mail for the initial phases. The officers will try to arrange a meeting in February to establish the award names/categories, guidelines for qualifying and format for submission.
- The committee felt strongly that the “Meetings” part of the Awards and Nominations Committee should be moved elsewhere, primarily with the Executive Committee. As it stands, we did not outline any duties concerning meetings, but if necessary/requested in the future, this committee might be charged with identifying future meeting locations and/or members for a specific “Meeting” subcommittee.
- Addendum:
- The following discussion of potential awards occurred via email exchange. The list of suggestions were included in the minutes so the Awards committee could address each one at the next meeting. The complete list of potential awards proposed was:
- Plant breeding/extension collaboration and/or integration
- Outstanding work in the PBCC organization
- Outstanding International Breeder…to support international plant breeding, maybe in the form of an international version of the Early Career Award.
- Best breeding with a new crop
- Best breeding work with wild species and distant germplasm
- Breeder whose work had significant positive economic impact
- Breeder whose work had significant environmental impact
- Senior breeder whose career has shown innovation of practical value
- Public-sector breeder whose work has enabled private sector breeding
- Private sector award…Lifetime Achievement – Private Sector
- Outstanding Educator for Plant Breeding
- Public Awareness…Someone who impacted the global perception of plant breeders and their work. Should not be limited to “breeders”.
- Members Present
2007 Subcommittee - Excellence in Science and Technology
This is the report from the subcommittee on Excellence in Science and Technology. It met as part of the Plant Breeding Coordinating Committee in Cary, North Carolina on February 7-9, 2007.
This report was prepared by:
- Craig Yencho, secretary
- Anna McClung
- Andrea Cardinal
- Jack Staub
- David Stelly, chair
The group commenced its efforts by dividing into two subgroups and independently discussing the relevance of plant breeding to US science and technology using the key discussion points provided by the organizers. Steve Baenziger and Jim Coors? led the two subgroups, ushering forward and moderating the respective discussions. Each subgroup was served by 3 volunteers, a recorder (R) and two delegates (D), who worked as a team to summarize first-day discussions, and then presented them at the outset of the 2 nd day, i.e., to fuse subgroup-specific ideas into a common report, and then to present the unified report to the Workshop attendee gathering.
Discussions in both groups independently established deep-seated convictions that plant breeding is vital to both advancement and utilization of US science and technology, and that US Plant Breeding efforts need better support if they are to continue to contribute to the advancement of overall US science and technology. Subsequent discussions took aim at highlighting supporting philosophical themes, and their exemplification. Key points were that
- Goal
- Excellence in Science and Technology
- Plant breeding is a uniquely multidisciplinary, integrative science, through which diverse technologies and knowledge are translated into biological products and knowledge that impact science, agriculture and society at multiple levels.
- Breeding requires deep insight into biological, genetic and breeding behavior each species, including its biology, genetics, germplasm, domesticated culture, variability to abiotic and biotic challenges, biology and genetics of symbionts and pathogens, their uses, and also the markets and industries into which they fit. Thus, each breeding program typically involves multiple scientific and technological elements, and thus often multiple laboratories. (for examples or evidence -- cite data from cumulative national report or other sources about the numbers/types of laboratories typically involved in team-based breeding?)
- Plant breeding is a visionary science that is providing solutions today and will provide solutions tomorrow.
- Plant breeding is an essential national investment. An improved economy and exports, especially in our vital agricultural sectors, result from strong plant breeding efforts. The scientific revelations and genetic advances of today in plant breeding are often based on experiments conducted years ago. Breeding requires multiple plant generations, which range from weeks to years. Thus, some aspects of breeding require foresight that is years and even decades ahead. The experiments set in motion today and tomorrow will provide unique scientific revelations and technological innovations in the future that are essential to US success.
- Plant breeding creates novel genetic resources, reveals new traits, stimulates discoveries that drive other areas of research, and delivers new research tools. (e.g. RILs, mapping popns, novel traits).
- Because plant breeding is multidisciplinary, analytical and team-oriented, scientists trained in plant breeding are capable of identifying, analyzing and solving complex needs that are crucial to our future. Future societal issues that can benefit greatly from a concerted investment in plant breeding include agricultural sustainability, global warming via the development of biofuels and bio-based products, water management, globalization, poverty and hunger, etc.)
- WHAT IS NEEDED TO ASSEMBLE A FACTUAL AND COMPELLING CASE
- US science relies on a continuous flow of new ideas, knowledge, products and capable scientists. The science of plant breeding provides unique contributions in each of these areas.
- Society requires an ample supply of well-trained scientists, including plant breeders. The competitiveness of US science depends on a continuous supply of innovative, well-educated, team-oriented plant breeders that can address complex research problems, such as global warming, renewable energy, sustainability, diminishing per capita natural resources, and improved human health. The challenge of providing sufficient numbers of plants is exacerbated by the steeply diminished numbers of recent graduates.
- [support this item with facts delivered in the plenary talk about excellence in science and technology?), i.e., the # graduates now is 1/2 what it was 6-7 years ago???)
- We discussed the idea of promoting the concept of a local and/or national food supply becoming an important food security issue with impacts locally and nationally. We simply cannot afford, as a nation, to loose our ability to feed ourselves. Plant breeding can assist in this cause and it has national security implications.
- Society requires new knowledge and new products. Plant breeding has created and will continue to produce numerous advances with far-reaching benefits to society.
- Past examples of plant breeding impacts that can be used to create a compelling case for sustained efforts in plant breeding include:
- Green Revolution
- The “Green Revolution” demonstrated on a global scale the broad applicability of principles established by breeding, i.e. that genotypes bred for high yield and semi-dwarfism could be used to significantly enhance productivity, when supplied with ample nutrients, to feed the world and alleviate hunger and malnutrition.
- Heterosis
- Early plant breeding experiments demonstrated fundamental principles, such as the feasibility of inbreeding naturally allogamous species, inbreeding depression, and hybrid heterosis. These principles have been extended to numerous other organisms with extensive ramifications on breeding, production, health, economy and other sciences, including medicine. For example, following the results in maize by GH Shull at the Carnegie Experimental Station, CC Little, also at Carnegie, inbred mice, demonstrated genetic components to cancer and established the Jackson Laboratory. In plants, the efforts to facilitate and diversify hybrid production systems continue in numerous crops. Interests in methods of producing inbreds and hybrids have stimulated a continuous stream of scientific discoveries, such as cytoplasmic and cytoplasmic-nuclear systems, haploid and doubled-haploid extraction systems, mitochondria, differences in expression (e.g., gametophytic versus sporophytic), genetic control, molecular interactions, and organelle-nuclear cross-talk and evolutionary genetic exchange. The occurrence of heterosis, continues to drive scientific inquiry as to its basis, exemplified, for example by hypotheses regarding the impact of helitron-induced deletions in maize on heterozygosity, and thus breeding behavior. (cite work, e.g., Dupont’s).
- Alien introgression
- Wide-cross hybridization and alien germplasm introgression have been and continue to be undertaken for breeding research purposes in most crops with significant breeding efforts. The phenotypic extremes and unexpected types of trait variation have led to the revelation of numerous genomic, cytogenetic, genetic, and/or epigenetic phenomena, as well as the development of new and improved plant varieties produced on millions of acres of farmland around the globe. Moreover, the elevated rates of molecular polymorphism associated with wide hybridization rendering the trait variation highly amenable to contemporary methods of marker-assisted trait dissection. (BEST EXAMPLES TO CITE? New cytoplasmic-nuclear male sterility systems (e.g., maize, sorghum, numerous others). Digenic Muller-Dobzhansky systems (many species, especially polyploids). Meiotic drive systems; “cuckoo” chromosomes; induction of chromosome fragmentation (e.g., wheat by Endo)… physical mapping systems (wheat deletion lines); localization of apomixis-determining genes (several examples, e.g., Pennisetum; disease resistance genes… cloning them; ….).
- Transgenic technology
- According to ISAAA (http://www.isaaa.org/) the global area of biotech crops continued to climb for the tenth consecutive year at a sustained double-digit growth rate of 13%, or 12 million hectares (30 million acres), reaching 102 million hectares (252 million acres). This is a historical landmark in that it is the first time that more than 100 million hectares of biotech crops worldwide have been grown with the number of countries planting biotech crops increasing to 22. Biotech soybeans continue to be the principal biotech crop in 2006, occupying 58.6 million hectares (57% of global biotech area), followed by maize (25.2 million hectares at 25%), cotton (13.4 million hectares at 13%) and canola (4.8 million hectares at 5% of global biotech crop area). This trend will undoubtedly continue in the future as new biotech crops come online.
- Marker-assisted breeding
- need examples
- Green Revolution
- Present and future examples of plant breeding impacts that can be used to create a compelling case for sustained efforts in plant breeding include:
- Creating, identifying and harnessing genetic variation to enhance oil profiles of oil seed crops.
- Creating and identifying variation to enhance nutritional profiles, and nutriceutical and medicinal properties of food crops
- Creating and identifying variation to enhance production of biofuels and additional bio-based products from starchy and oil seed crops.
- Creating and identifying variation for enhanced performance of crops in sustainable production systems
- PARTNERS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLANT BREEDING
- Plant breeders have cultivated numerous public and private partners over the years to champion their causes. These include:
- End users: farmers, growers, landscapers, ornamental vendors, lumber companies and mills, consumers, processors, germplasm system, and emerging end-users, and relevant commercial enterprises that use plant-based products.
- Funding sources: NIH, NSF, USDA, foundations, etc
- Academic and education communities – elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate
- Government agencies: NASA, EPA, DOE, Homeland security,
- Relevant NGOs and Governmental agencies focused on sustainable development,
- Relevant scientific societies: ASHS, PAA, ACS, SEE vol, Med. Sci. Soc.
- International Plant Breeding Society and private funding agencies.
- Allied academic disciplines (eg. Plant pathology, entomology, soil and weed science, etc)
- Plant breeders have cultivated numerous public and private partners over the years to champion their causes. These include:
- Also:
- Pharmaceutical companies
- Cosmetic companies
- University/expt stns/
- Energy companies
- National research Council
- Media - ag research
- However, we also recognized (and most agreed) that plant breeders need to do a better job of reaching out and even identifying new partners to further our cause.
- Strategies and Actions for 6 months
- Coordination
- Establish a Coordination committee and sub-committee – elected at meeting
- Write report from this sub-group, including priority needs (for granting agencies)
- Draft within 3 mo,
- Final with 6 mo – David Stelly and Andrea Cardinal
- Devise a “brand” name for the plant breeding group – develop and suggest to main committee – “Changing plants for a changing world” – Craig Yencho, Surinder Gulia, F. Bliss
- (Decision on location and time for next meeting one year from now – Central Comm..)
- Communication
- Develop a reframed vocabulary that will be used in final report; align the terminology with goals -- A. Iezzoni, Roy Scott, H. Ohm
- Include a definition of plant breeding
- Consider developing a thesaurus vs a dictionary
- Develop a set of terms that can be used by policy makers to stress the important role of plant breeders in meeting national goals/issues
- Communicate with logo group
- Website
- Meeting summary – elected sub-comm
- Stock set of slides – power point - examples of excellence (e.g., seedless grapes, green revolution, etc – existing presentations) - A McClung
- Blueprint for sustained excellence, from mtg summary - D. Stelly, elected officers
- Data -- why we need plant breeding – statistics on education, programs, grad students, summarized from existing studies - N. de Leon
- Modify existing website - Todd Wehner
- Establish mechanism for long term curation of website
- Public relations
- Presentations about this group at ASTA, AOSCA, Natl Council Comm Plant Breeders, Amer. Phytopath Soc., Plant and Animal Genome - main committee, liaisons
- EDUCATION
- Post breeding courses on the web (links from central plant breeding website to local web pages) - B. Walsh
- POSITIONING AND INFLUENCE
- Introduce ourselves to program officers of granting agencies, and communicate the opportunities for breeders to review grant proposals - B. Walsh
- Strategies and Actions for 2 years
- Assessment and accountability
- Develop a means for assessing accountability - sub comm. to be appointed
- Communication
- Press releases (link with PR) - central comm. And liaisons
- Short videos - youtube, myspace, google - sub comm. will identify those to do videos
- Build websites
- Central for plant breeding (this group) - Todd Wehner
- Local levels
- Wikipedia – elected sub comm.
- Education: Transfer to education comm. - this group's liaison B. Walsh
- Improve opportunities for undergraduate research experience
- Secure more funding for graduate education
- Extension, outreach, continuing education, educate the educators
- Develop “skill” sheets
- Delphi studies – web-based
- Grants for establishing K-12 education programs, simple lessons for teachers about plants, genetics, breeding
- Positioning and Influence
- Lobby Congress - group made up of industry, grower, university - representative - central comm
- Bridges to other professional societies/disciplines – comm.
- Bridges to NGO - W. Goldstein
- Develop a reframed vocabulary that all breeders can use - Iezzoni
- Come up with priority needs that could be pitched to granting agencies - central comm
- Contact John DeGraf (PBS - Seattle) compelling stories of plant breeders (as example) - central comm
- Assessment and accountability
- Strategies and Actions for 5 years
- Communication
- Videogame, web based educational tools
- Get funding to be able to present to TV - (60 minutes, educational programs, Discovery channel, Food channel, etc) importance and excellence in science of plant breeding
- Education
- Teach undergraduate biology classes or lectures
- More cross-linked classes
- Participatory breeding (i.e. specialty crops) - farmers, seed savers, small seed companies - can help in the development and commercialization
- Positioning and Influence
- Develop means for assessment and provide accountability, accreditation
- Create and strengthen working relationships with competitive granting agencies, including NSF and DOE.
- Establish an International Plant Breeding Society
- Participating attendees in this workgroup:
- J. Barb
- P. Arelli
- P. Araes
- S. Baenziger (G1)
- F. Bliss (R-G1)
- J. Coors (G2)
- A. Cardinal (D)
- N.. de Leon
- M. Friedrichs
- C. Franks
- S. Flint – Garcia
- W. Goldstein
- M. Goodman
- S. Gulia
- G. Graham
- A. Iezzoni
- F. Kolb
- A. McClung (R-G1)
- S. McKeand
- R. Lobato-Ortiz
- P. Murphy
- L. Nass
- H. Ohm
- T. Ranney
- J. Robbins
- R. Scott
- E. Shipe
- K. Simmons
- J. Staub (D)
- D. Stelly (D)
- B. Thornton
- B. Walsh
- J. Yang
- G.C. Yencho (D)