Bringing the Benefits of Biotechnology to the Poor: The Role of the CGIAR Centers

  • Michael L. Morris
  • David Hoisington
Chapter

Abstract

This paper examines the current and potential future role of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in bringing the benefits of biotechnology to the poor. The 16 CGIAR Centers currently invest around US $25 million annually on biotechnology, focusing mainly on conducting biotechnology research and building related research capacity in developing countries. In the future, they will have to direct more attention to strengthening national regulatory frameworks and promoting public awareness of biotechnology. In addition, the Centers can continue to play an important role in facilitating technology transfers by fostering innovative public-private and/or North-South partnerships. In the long run, the CGIAR Centers’ success will depend on their ability to adapt to the changing environment in which agricultural research is carried out. A major challenge will be dealing with the growth of intellectual property rights, which are rapidly privatizing science and irrevocably altering the role of public research organizations.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Private Firm Biotechnology Research International Agricultural Research Public Research Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarez-Morales, A. (1999): Finding a Formula to Ensure the Safety of the Environment While Benefiting from Biotechnology. Paper presented at the CGIAR-NAS conference “Ensuring Food Security, Protecting the Environment, and Reducing Poverty in Developing Countries: Can Biotechnology Help?”, 2122 October, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.R., and D.G. Dalrymple (1999): The World Bank, the Grant Program, and the CGIAR: A Retrospective Review. OED Working Paper Series, No. 1, World Bank, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, J.H., and W.E. Siebeck (1992): Intellectual Property Issues for the International Agricultural Research Centers. Issues in Agriculture 4, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. CGIAR (1998a): Report of the CGIAR Panel on General Issues in Biotechnology. Prepared for the CGIAR mid-term meeting, 25–29 May, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Brasilia.Google Scholar
  5. CGIAR (1998b): Report of the CGIAR Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology. Prepared for the CGIAR mid-term meeting, 25–29 May, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Brasilia.Google Scholar
  6. CGIAR (1997): Added Information on Expenditures in Biotechnology in 1997. Note prepared by the TAC Chairman for the discussions on biotechnology, International Centers Week, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J.I., C. Falconi, J. Komen, and M. Blakeney (1998): Proprietary Biotechnology Inputs and International Agricultural Research. ISNAR Briefing Paper, No. 39. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J.I. (1999): Managing Intellectual Property — Challenges and Responses for Agricultural Research Institutes. Paper presented at the CGIAR-NAS conference “Ensuring Food Security, Protecting the Environment, and Reducing Poverty in Developing Countries: Can Biotechnology Help?”, 21–22 October, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Evenson, R. (1999): The IAEG Crop Germplasm Impacts Study: A Provisional Report. Paper presented at International Centers Week, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Falconi, C. (1999): Agricultural Biotechnology Research Indicators In Developing Countries. Paper presented at the conference “The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation”, 17–19 June, Tor Vergata University, Rome.Google Scholar
  11. Fuglie, K., N. Ballenger, K. Day, C. Klotz, M. Ollinger, J. Reilly, U. Vasavada, and J. Yee (1996): Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments under Alternative Markets and Institutions. AER No. 735, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, J., and A. Johanson (1999): The Role of Biotechnology Policies and Regulations in Technology Transfer to Developing Countries. Paper presented at the conference “The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation”, 17–19 June, Tor Vergata University, Rome.Google Scholar
  13. Maredia, M., D. Byerlee, and K. Maredia (1999): Investment Strategies for Biotechnology in Emerging Research Systems. Paper presented at the conference “The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation”, 17–19 June, Tor Vergata University, Rome.Google Scholar
  14. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (1999): Biotech and the Poor. Washington Post, 27 October, p.31.Google Scholar
  15. Plucknett, D., J.I. Cohen, and M.E. Horne (1990): Role of the International Agricultural Research Centres. In: G.J. Persley (ed.). Agricultural Biotechnology: Opportunities for International Development. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Sederoff, R., with L. Meagher (1995): Access to Intellectual Property in Biotechnology: Constraints on the Research Enterprise. In: J.E. MacDonald (ed.). Genes for the Future: Discovery, Ownership, Access. NABC Report 7. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Morris
  • David Hoisington

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations