"The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture..." -Thomas Jefferson   WHAT IS PLANT BREEDING? -- ASK A QUESTION ABOUT PLANT BREEDING -- WHAT IS NAPB?

click for explanation and photo gallery

---

- Minutes NAPB/ PBCC
- Committees

Science, Technology and Informatics

 

 

2010 Subcommittee - Science, Technology and Informatics

Officers:  Kevin Smith (Chair), Elizabeth Lee (Vice-Chair), Mitch McGrath (Secretary)
Meeting convened at 1:30 PM.  Participants introduced themselves.  Current chair, Kevin Smith, noted the there was little activity by the subcommittee in the past year and that there was a need to better define the charge of this subcommittee. 
It was noted that a charge or description of the Science, Technology and Informatics Subcommittee was presented in a powerpoint slide at the business meeting as follows “promote scientific innovation in plant breeding such as database development of field traits and integration with lab”.  The group may want to revisit this description and develop a new “mission statement”.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
There was some discussion of how this group can better serve the NAPB/PBCC with respect to science, technology and informatics.  A major activity of past subcommittees was the preparation of white papers and one pagers and the importance of these documents for providing information to USDA and other groups was discussed.  Three important topics were discussed.  For each topic, there was an attempt to articulate potential subcommittee activities in terms of a basic inventory of the topic, specific actions the subcommittee could take, and advocacy activities.
1)  Database / Education  It was noted that one of the most obvious changes in the field of plant breeding is the volume of data that breeders need to collect, manage, analyze, and utilize and that the volume of data will only increase as more high-throughput genotyping and phenotyping technologies are adopted.  A critical need for plant breeding is database capacity.  Genotype databases are common for several species, but the equivalent resource for trait data is less common.  Many public plant breeders still use Excel spreadsheets as the primary means of storing, analyzing and displaying data.  Todd Wehner mentioned that there was a publicly available database called International Crop Information System or ICIS (http://www.icis.cgiar.org/icis) and that perhaps someone should look into how this could be adapted for plant breeding programs.  Several research groups organized around crop species have developed databases and tools for working with trait and marker data.  Several of the Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAPs) were discussed.  Linked to this discussion was the need to enhance graduate student education through experience using databases and managing large data sets.
A.  Inventory:  The STI subcommittee should conduct an inventory of current databases related to plant breeding and develop a list with brief descriptions and links that can be featured on the NAPB website.  Kevin will contact the web manager to start this page and provide the first entry for the barley CAP database TheHordeumToolbox (THT).  The officers of the STI will assign members to explore crops they are familiar with and populate the website with additional databases.
B. Actions:  The group was concerned that educational material developed by CAPs and other research projects might be lost if they do not have a permanent home after the funding for the project has ended.  We should look into hosting these materials on the NAPB website if they do not have a permanent home.  
C. Advocacy:   Since there are several crops that are developing databases through competitively funded grants, the NAPB should encourage the USDA to allocate funding for long term maintenance of these databases.
2) Genotyping Resources     Access and use of marker technology varies widely among different public breeding programs.  The small grains community has access to four regional USDA Genotyping Centers that conduct high-throughput DNA isolation and SSR and SNP genotyping on a routine basis.  Other crops have no such infrastructure and therefore have no access to this technology or must implement it within their own programs. 
A.  Inventory:  There was no specific discussion of this point.  However, it might be beneficial to determine which programs currently have access to MAS.  This information may have already been collected by others.
B. Actions:  No specific actions were discussed.  There was agreement that there should be an effort to enable more breeding programs to access markers for breeding possibly using the small grains example as a model.  There are commercial marker services available; however the main bottleneck is high-throughput DNA isolation since most commercial services require that you send them DNA.
C: Advocacy:  The NAPB should encourage the USDA to find ways to help increase access to marker technology for breeding to other public breeding programs. 
3)  High Throughput Phenotyping / Technology
There was a very brief discussion of recent advances in high-throughput phenotyping before time ran out.  This is an important and rapidly changing aspect of plant breeding and should be addressed in future discussions.
ELECTION OF NEW SECRETARY
Ross Whetten was the sole nominee for Secretary.  No vote was needed.  New officers for the coming year are:  Elizabeth Lee (Chair), Mitch McGrath (Vice-Chair) and Ross Whetten (Secretary).
COMMUNICATION PLAN
The group decided that communication of subcommittee activities should be by email.  This could be supplemented by populating a STI section of the NAPB website with information and the use of internet-based shared documents.  Conference calls would be scheduled as needed.
The meeting ended at 2:30 PM

 

2008 Subcommittee - Excellence in Science and Technology

(return to PBCC main page)

This is the report from the subcommittee on a Excellence in Science and Technology. It met as part of the Plant Breeding Coordinating Committee in Des Moines, Iowa on June 16-18, 2008.

This report was prepared by: David Stelly and Craig Yencho

• New officers
  • David Stelly, Past Chair (TAMU)
  • Craig Yencho, Chair (NCSU)
  • Silvia Cianzio, Chair-Elect (ISU)
  • Joshua Udall, Secretary, (BYU)
• Executive Summary
• The Excellence in Science and Technology workgroup had two lively sessions, I (Tuesday afternoon) and II (Wednesday morning), with extensive contributions from vertically diverse groups of about 25 and 18 participants, respectively, including university  administrators, faculty, post-docs and students; USDA-ARS administrators, scientists, private industry leaders and breeders, and a University of Guelph (Canada) faculty member.
  • METRICS & ACCOUNTABILITY: The group felt that metrics were feasible, but judicious use would require some special consideration. It thus generated two lists (see DETAILS), termed here as
    • “Potential Metrics”, and
    • “Potentially Influential Parameters”, i.e., factors that would logically influence performance (program / professional / educational), and thus expectations need to be considered as part of a metric-based evaluation.
• KEY OUTPUTS FOR THE COMING YEAR: 
• “White Paper” - A schedule was developed group-wide review, input and finishing the white paper by September 1 (Stelly responsible for schedule-adherence). 
• “One-pager” - the completion target date was set at Dec. 1 (Yencho responsible for schedule-adherence). Note, that the group felt that multiple Science & Technology “one-pagers” should eventually be developed (e.g., one or more for K-12), but that focus was needed up front on the overall one-pager, after which more specialized versions can be developed.
• Development of an Implementation Strategy: The group felt that it important begin now, complete follow-through for next meeting (if not sooner, especially given the a national election is approaching quickly). Also, we must explicitly define our “ASK” statement ASAP (amounts and types of funding, accountability). Can/should the ASK statement go into the white paper and one-pager? (Or should the S&T workgroup leave this matter to the overall Exec. Comm.?)
• A definition of plant breeding that met with resounding approval was “Plant Breeding -- Science and Technology With with a Purpose” . It was considered to be a strong candidate for use as a motto.
• Break-out Session-1
• Discussion Topic 1 - Plant Breeding Metrics and Accountability Discussions – What are the appropriate metrics to use to justify plant breeding?
• Is there an inherent problem with metrics and plant breeding?
  • Most thought no, but it is difficult to use metric standards from other disciplines in PLBR since PLBR is so distinct, different
  • The gestation time of breeding programs, before success can be evident, can affect expectations greatly
  • But, why should plant breeders be viewed any different from other scientists.
• What are some typical metrics used to Evaluate/Describe a PLBR Program?
  • Potential metrics
• Varieties, germplasm releases, populations released (e.g. mapping populations)
• But how do you measure varietal worth? $$ value, acres planted, use as breeding material, number of licenses
• Publications – quality vs quantity a consideration
  • How to gauge quality – citations, quality indexes, etc.
  • Patents granted
  • Education – Students (numbers, quality, placement in positions of responsibility)
  • Canadians require that scientists (including breeders) list their 5 most significant research contributions
    • Accomplishment should relate to societal importance, but is there a tendency to embellishment?
  • Peer recognition – awards, panel memberships, chairs, evidence of leadership
  • Level of stakeholder contact and stakeholder input.
  • Invited talks
  • Consulting
  • Number of grants – type, duration
  • Teaching and extension activities
  • Student and postdoc placement
• The group considered that any of a number of factors would likely affect success of breeding programs and these could affect metric choices and expectations:
  • Potentially Influential Parameters:
  • Duration and stage of career, and program
  • Crop generation time and crop species – e.g., annuals vs perennials, tree crops vs veggies, etc.
  • Existing collaborations and resources – how fast one can get a program operational …
  • Number of crops for which the program or breeder is responsible – some have to work with multiple crops, and limits the amount of effort per crop
  • Programmatic resources – how much support is provided
    • Students, technicians, support personnel, etc
    • Funding availability
  • Accessible research infrastructure and location of research
  • Appointment splits % Res:% Ext:% Teaching; service appt?
    • few new hires are going to have a 100% res appt in academia
  • Funding resources – federal, state, local, commodity, etc
  • Paper and grant reviewing
• Break-out Session Two
• Discussion Topic 2 – What are the key outputs that we expect to achieve during the next year?
  • White paper completion (targets)
• Stelly to send e-copy to Excellence in Science (EiS) members on return.
• S&T breakout group members to review and send in comments to Stelly and Yencho – Due Date Mon. July 7th
• July 21 – revised draft out for review.
• One-page white paper completion – Target Date - Dec. 1 (or sooner)
  • Long term, we probably need more than one version, tailored for different target audiences - examples
    • Education – K-12 range
    • Granting agencies – USDA, DOE, NSF, NIH
      • Tie in/partner with other groups to develop – Eg. NIH – Safe and Secure
    • Congress
  • However, short term we need to focus on 1 to 3 key groups – Deans and Directors, Major commodity organizations and stakeholders, Congress, Major funding agencies
• Need to work on a strategy to implement – Begin now, complete for next meeting
• What is it exactly that we are asking for?
• Funding levels needed $$$
• Accountability standards
• Type of funding – National Competitive Grant System for Applied Breeding? Support for Core funding, mix of the two, etc. 
• We really need to figure this out, perhaps it is best left up to Executive Committee?
• Key thoughts tossed out for white papers –brainstorming session/ random thoughts
• In the “ask” statement we need to divide support for “core”  or base funding level and “basic or longer-term science-based” funding.
• We need to describe exactly what is plant breeding?
• Why is public breeding relevant and needed?
• Need to make private, public and nonprofit efforts in each realm compatible, and beneficial for each sector.
• Need to stress importance of educational pipeline for private sector.
• Challenge in public knowledge and granting.
• What do we need to tell people?
• How do we tailor the 1 pagers for “the ask”.
• Consider using the a medical analogy – public sector as a key pipeline for private industry.
• Plant breeding does not occur in leaps and bounds, it is gradual in general – this needs to be stressed.
• We need to highlight outstanding examples of success in plant breeding – e.g. healthy oils, low linoleic beans, doubled haploids, MAS, mutation breeding, etc.
• Specialty crop breeding - by and large, industry is not addressing this sector (with the exception of a few crops like tomato and cucurbits).  Consider this example…. apples – The US has been flooded by imported apples…Why???? as a serious lack of US apple breeders breeding new apples, New Zealand, which has a vibrant apple breeding program has filled this need.  Other tree fruits have the same thing happening.
• High correlation between healthy crops and healthy people.
• Relation of new funding to existing programs.
• Our new motto??? Plant Breeding  --  Science and Technology with a Purpose–
• Enhance our translational role in science.
• Executive committee meeting
  • Need to continue Conference calls – Third Thurs of each month, 1 PM EST, USDA-ARS call in number (see emails for number)
  • White papers –we need to keep them moving forward,  need to ID who is contact person, generally chairs, to keep them on track.
    • Science policy arm of CSSA – committed to 2 papers
      • Healthy Populations and Education – 1st two to move forward
  • Key Issues of Discussion
    • How to synthesize 7 WP’s to 1 major topic – Tom Stalker, NCSU, to take care of this.
    • How to get all advocate’s to speak with one voice
    • What about the new Specialty Grants Research Initiative and DOE Biofuels Funding coming down the pike?  Will others point to this and say that applied breeders are finally being addressed? We need to get ready to address this question?
    • Should our advocacy efforts include a position (strategic) on how to make public plant breeding more efficient.
    • In the long run major funding may go to PLBR centers of Excellence at the larger Univs with robust breeding activities, programs and courses.  Is this ok?  What are the ramifications?  How can we sustain smaller programs that are still needed for many of the specialty crops?
    • Plant breeding and plant molecular genetics are distinct yet complementary.
    • We need to stress connectivity, integration, convergence, of the enabling aspects of plant breeding.
  • Subcommittee Responsibilities
    • Minutes of Cmmtt mtgs need to go onto web – Yencho to get to Wehner
    • Notes of metric sections to Linda Pollack and Ann Marie – Yencho to take care of this too.
• Participating attendees in this workgroup:
  • Beavis, Bill
• Chiu, Li-Wei
• Cianzio, Silvia
• Edwards, Jeremy
• Gasic, Ksenija
• Kim, Hyunjung
• Lee, Elizabeth
• Maughan, Jeff
• Mayor, Laura
• Nagy, Ervin
• Peiffer, Jason
• Perez, Paola
• Robins, Joseph
• Santra, Dipak
• Shi, Ainong
• Singh, Sukhwinder
• Stelly, David
• Udall, Joshua
• Utomo, Herry
• Wenefrida, Ida
• Xu, Wenwei
• Yencho, Craig

2007 Subcommittee - Excellence in Science and Technology

(return to PBCC main page)

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
• 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)
• 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
• 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)

 

 

 

 

Home | About | Hot Topics | Meetings | Awards | Careers | Programs | Partners | Links | SiteMap

 

 

 

Last Modified 10/24/2011; ©NAPB; all website questions can be addressed to S.C. Murray