| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Professor Emeritus, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616 and Sr. Director, R&D Special Projects, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, 37437 Hwy. 16, Woodland, CA 95695
* Corresponding author (Fred.Bliss{at}Seminis.com).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Abbreviations: FTE, full-time equivalent • IARC, International Agricultural Research Center • NGO, nongovernmental organization • SAES, state agricultural experiment station
Professor Emeritus, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616 and Sr. Director, R&D Special Projects, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, 37437 Hwy. 16, Woodland, CA 95695
* Corresponding author (Fred.Bliss{at}Seminis.com).
Plant breeding is essential to global food security and to a viable strategy for developing efficient plant sources for biofuels. Despite expanding demand for professionals educated in breeding fundamentals and able to integrate evolving new technology for crop improvement, public-supported programs are diminishing. To meet future needs for breeders engaged in cultivar development, prebreeding and population improvement, biotechnology and applied genomics, and education and training, greater support must be forthcoming from public funding and businesses that are future employers. Colleges and universities with supporting curricula should work together to develop collaborative programs and courses of study that prepare new graduates for future employment, which will be largely in the private sector in developed countries and the public sector in developing countries. Broad-based efforts to increase public awareness about the impact of plant breeding and inform students about career opportunities are needed to assure that highly qualified, dedicated new professionals replace the large numbers of current breeders nearing retirement.
Abbreviations: FTE, full-time equivalent • IARC, International Agricultural Research Center • NGO, nongovernmental organization • SAES, state agricultural experiment station
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In most developed countries there is a continuing flow of new, genetically improved cultivars of the major crops reaching farmers. However, for small-acreage specialty crops grown under diverse production systems that may not be the case because a cogent plan and support for crop improvement and distribution are lacking. In stark contrast to developed markets, few improved cultivars of key crops are reaching farmers in many developing and transition countries that rely heavily on agriculture to bolster their economies. So too, there are glaring needs in those countries for improved plant breeding infrastructure, including more human resources for plant breeding and other crop improvement activities (Guimaraes et al., 2006).
Morris et al. (2006) point to warning signs that plant breeding may be under stress, especially in developing countries but also in industrialized countries, where there is declining public investment in agriculture and seed companies are finding it increasingly difficult to hire enough qualified breeders. Just as agriculture continues to change dramatically, the activities performed by breeders are also changing. Indeed, definitions of breeding and breeder must be updated to assure that we are preparing for the future; not today and certainly not yesterday.
What is Plant Breeding and Who are Plant Breeders?
A broad definition of plant breeding usually refers to the purposeful manipulation of genetic material through hybridization, mutation, or genetic engineering to produce new genotypes followed by selection of outstanding individuals to establish cultivars which are populations of related plants with economic value. Plant breeding can range from domestication of wild materials to production of landraces by farmers and sophisticated, targeted breeding approaches using advanced technology. Some definitions such as those by Lee and Dudley (2006) and Gepts and Hancock (2006) stress technical components, for example, applied science, multidisciplinary approaches based on genetic principles, improved germplasm, new cultivars suited to human needs, and transfer of few to many genes controlling simple to complex traits resulting in economically important phenotypes. The traditional idea of a breeder only as a person developing new cultivars and improved germplasm is changing to include a wide range of professionals contributing to crop improvement (e.g., through breeding research, cultivar development, genomics). A concise definition was presented by Bernardo (2002) cited by Crosbie et al. (2006): "Plant breeding is the science, art, and business of improving plants for human benefit." These concepts and definitions of plant breeding and crop improvement provide a framework for addressing how to prepare breeders and other professionals involved in ancillary activities that often require some knowledge of breeding principles and practice to fulfill job expectations.
Common usage of the terms "plant breeding" and "plant breeder" often imply homogenous activities and a singular group of people with common expectations, goals, and tasks. However, to accommodate the multidisciplinary nature of plant breeding, three categories—cultivar breeding, germplasm enhancement, and breeding research (Frey, 1996)—with an additional one, biotechnology, added in 2001 (Traxler et al., 2005), were used to identify and quantify resources allocated to breeding activities in the United States. Similar categories that characterize allocation of effort (i.e., germplasm improvement, line development, line evaluation, and biotechnology) are being used by the FAO to assess plant breeding and biotechnology capacity in developing countries (Guimaraes et al., 2006).
Contributions of nonscientists to overall crop improvement should also be acknowledged. In addition to scientific plant breeding, other people contribute to maintenance of germplasm in its varied forms and provision of cultivars to meet the needs of society. Farmer selection contributed mightily not only to domestication but also creating landraces that continue to be important for sustaining much of the population in developing countries bereft of a seed industry infrastructure. So too, plant hobbyists play an important role in preserving the integrity of diverse heirloom varieties for current and future use. In many tree fruit crops, selectors choosing natural sorts have released new cultivars, albeit some that are quite similar genetically except for seemingly important phenotypic differences due to single gene mutants.
Global Importance and Role of Plant Breeding
Our increasing dependence on crop improvement began with the transition of humankind from hunter-gathers to more stationary populations that obtain essential products for sustaining life and commerce from cultivated plants. Countries are becoming more urbanized and fewer farmers are counted on to feed more people not involved with production agriculture. The concept of crop cultivars began with plant domestication resulting from selection of subpopulations of genetically similar plants. Today, cultivars still are the only platform with which to deliver genetic improvement of crop plants to all of agriculture. Until there is a major paradigm shift, the well-being of humankind is completely dependent on crop plant improvement, which is accomplished primarily through plant breeding.
The global importance of crop improvement and the vital role of plant breeding often are not widely recognized. To most plant breeders the significance is self-evident, but to the general public and decision makers in a position to influence support for professional education and training, a clear, concise picture including vivid examples is required (e.g., Tiffin and Irz, 2006). Although the recipients of key information often will have limited knowledge of agriculture, crops, biological sciences, genetics, and breeding, they may be critically interested in food security, world trade, natural resources, rural communities, etc. Compelling information that will positively influence allocation of resources needed for breeder training and infrastructure strengthening should be science-based, forward-looking but realistic, and reflect the knowledge, experience, and convictions of breeders (e.g., Mather et al., 2003; Bersten et al., 2006). The message should be informative to not only the direct beneficiaries of new plant cultivars but also those who bear the costs of supporting the infrastructure required for effective plant breeding.
Food security is lacking in many developing countries, the consequences of which are daily struggles to obtain food, widespread malnutrition, and lack of jobs sufficient to generate enough income for families. One of the most troubling features of these countries is absence of a vibrant agriculture sector, even more important because they are predominantly rural and rely heavily on agricultural products for internal needs and export revenue (Table 1 ). Contributing greatly to the dysfunctional agricultural enterprise is low crop productivity and a dearth of new cultivars reaching local farmers. The planting materials (i.e., seeds and other propagules) are usually saved by farmers from one season to the next, assuring that at best there is little or no genetic improvement. Even when soil fertility, water management, and other agronomic practices are improved and distribution systems for the harvested products upgraded, movement toward food sustainability will be minimal without progressive genetic improvement of important crops. The FAO surveys show that with few exceptions there is insufficient infrastructure to support plant breeding, with a major deficiency being too few well-trained breeders and not enough support to keep them gainfully employed (Guimaraes et al., 2006).
|
"Return-on-investment studies cannot be made on every variety released because they are painstaking and costly. But the few that have been performed suggest that the effort has been well worth it. The three-million dollar effort to create and disseminate the early-maturing millet variety Okashana 1, released in 1989 in Namibia, was estimated in 1998 to be returning net benefits worth 50% of the investment, year after year—a rate of return far outstripping that which can be earned in banks or in the stock market, while directly helping society's poorest. Sorghum varieties released since 1975 for the Nigerian food industry were evaluated in 2002 and estimated to be earning a 62% annual return on investment for the period. Sorghum variety S 35 in Chad generated an even more spectacular result: a 95% return on investment per annum, generating about $4 million per year in net benefits to the poor of this impoverished region due to its 50% yield advantage. Cash value, of course is not the only measure of success; the alleviation of human suffering is a priceless good in its own right. Nor do these studies assess all the indirect benefits of economic growth and employment stimulated by the success of a new crop variety, for example the training of national scientists, and the new employment and profits associated with agricultural input supply crop processing and marketing" (Source: ICRSAT- http://www.icrisat.org/New&Events/OneMillion.htm).
Where are Plant Breeders Employed?
Plant breeding is performed by public and private entities worldwide, but there is limited well-documented information about the numbers of breeders in different countries, by whom they are employed, their level of education and training, the crops on which they are working, and their breeding activities. In general, the proportion of breeders employed in the public vs. private sectors is related to the level of industrialization and the presence and strength of a functional private seed industry. Issues encompassing protection of intellectual property rights are beginning to influence the movement of germplasm and finished materials within the public sector and among private businesses.
The most complete surveys available were compiled for the United States, where there were 2205 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in 1994 (Frey, 1996) and 2156 FTEs in 2001 (Traxler et al., 2005), devoted to breeding activities. The number of biotechnology positions probably increased between 1994 and 2001, but it is unclear since this activity was identified separately only in 2001 and included in other categories in 1994. Even though the two surveys posed somewhat different questions, the total numbers of positions were similar (Table 2 ).
|
95% of the total), with 23 working on cereals, 10 on oil seed rape (Brassica napus L.), 4 on pulses, 15 on vegetables, and 10 on lawn and forage grasses (P. Maplestone, personal communication, 2006; http://www.BSPB.co.uk/links.html/ verified 18 Oct. 2007). According to statistics of Brazilian Society of Plant Breeding, there are 342 plant breeders working in Brazil, 94.7% of whom are working in public institutions and 5.3% in the private sector (Pedro A.A. Pereira, O. Peixoto, and I.O. Geraldi, personal communication, 2006). Several countries have made excellent progress in establishing strong plant breeding infrastructure and delivering needed cultivars (e.g., the Institute for Plant Breeding in the Philippines). Although comparable data were not found, it is reasonable to assume there are substantial numbers in Western European countries, Japan, Korea, Australia, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Chile.
The picture that emerged from the U.S. plant breeding surveys was that two-thirds to three-fourths of the jobs in plant breeding are in the private sector. Of the total, nearly half (45%) involve cultivar development and germplasm enhancement. The majority of breeders (70%) are working with agronomic crops vs. horticultural crops, and there are relatively few forest tree breeders (Table 3
).
|
In the developing countries surveyed by FAO, most breeders are located in and funded through government agencies, but relatively few are at universities or other educational centers. Most breeding and related positions are in the public sector due to lack of markets attractive enough for extensive participation by private seed companies. As in the United States, the FAO surveys indicate the majority of the breeders work with crops of greatest need in the various countries, usually agronomic crops foremost of which is the cereals, next most likely being root and tuber crops, then legumes. Additionally, there are serious shortages and great needs in all other food and fiber crops. Although new trainees must be prepared in the short term for work primarily in the public sector there will be emerging opportunities with local, regional, and pan-national companies engaged in crop improvement businesses.
Opportunities and Demand for New Breeders
The U.S. surveys showed about 2200 scientists engaged in various breeding activities in the private and public sectors. We can expect that a portion of them must be replaced on an annual basis as they are lost to the breeding profession due to death and disability, retirement, movement to other positions, etc. I found no estimates of the rate of turnover for U.S. plant breeders, but assuming a rate of 5% per year, about 100 professionals spread across the categories of cultivar breeders, germplasm enhancers, breeding researchers, and biotechnologists are needed to continue at status quo.
Studies cited by Coors (2006) suggest that the number of breeding students graduated by U.S. universities peaked in the mid-1980s, with a downward trend through the 1990s. Since then the numbers appear to be stable through 2000, when Gunar and Wehner (2003) estimated that 360 domestic students and 411 foreign students received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from U.S. universities from 1995 to 2000. Assuming the U.S. domestic students and a few foreign students seek U.S. jobs, about 70 to 80 new breeders annually received advanced degrees and were available to replenish active plant breeders in the United States. Although the categories defined as plant breeding in the U.S. surveys are not fully congruent with those used in estimating number of graduates, these rough estimates suggest that the numbers being produced in 2000 were barely adequate to meet demands. If as is commonly concluded and the 2001 data suggest, support for research and training of plant breeders in U.S. universities (SAES) has diminished, the output of new breeders from U.S. universities is most likely not meeting current demands.
The education and training of future plant breeders should provide the breadth and depth needed to fulfill their job requirements and support future professional advancement. Despite our inability to predict future events very accurately, some attempt should be made to identify who will employ future breeders and the types of jobs they will be expected to perform (Table 4 ). In the United States and other industrialized countries with well-developed seed systems, the private sector is likely to offer the majority of jobs. Since those companies depend greatly on producing competitive new cultivars, a large number of those jobs will involve cultivar development. Other job types, for example, lab and field support technologies will have a commercial orientation. Jobs in the public sector of developed countries will likely stress research and teaching, but to offer training opportunities they should have a component of cultivar development and other field-related activities. It has been suggested that public breeders focus on crops that are less attractive to commercial companies, but that idea has failed to gain traction. If a crop is not attractive to commercial interests it is difficult to obtain meaningful long-term support for work in the public sector, since public support is usually directly or indirectly influenced by strong self-interest groups.
|
The numbers and types of breeders in developing countries are difficult to project. For example the countries listed in Table 1 identified about 2100 breeders in total, with the number per country ranging from <10 to >500 (E.P. Guimaraes, personal communication, 2006). Despite guidelines for identifying and classifying breeders, there are likely sizeable discrepancies among countries as to the definition of a breeder. In addition to the countries listed, perhaps 25 more also have deficiencies of some magnitude in breeding infrastructure including lack of enough trained breeders. It is likely that in the developing countries, there are 4000 to 5000 plant breeders, with the optimal number still to be estimated. In the near future, most jobs will likely be in the public sector, but support for programs of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and brightening commercial opportunities should offer increasing employment in the private sector.
Programs and Curricula
Colleges and universities will continue to provide most formal breeding education through degree programs that are part of the general and specialized curriculum. In the past many M.S. and Ph.D. recipients from around the world obtained their degrees from institutions in industrialized countries. In the U.S. breeder education is offered in many universities, but <10 provide the majority of advanced degrees (Gunar and Wehner, 2003). In the U.K., there are opportunities to study at M.S. and Ph.D. levels, at University of East Anglia/John Innes Centre (http://www.uea.ac.uk/bio/plants/), Birmingham (http://www.biosciences.bham.ac.uk), Nottingham (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/biosciences), and Aberystwyth (http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Research/PostgraduateResearch.htm). In addition to breeder education programs in developed countries, some developing countries (e.g., Nigeria) and transition countries (e.g., Brazil, Philippines, India, China) have developed a capacity to meet their own needs and some of other countries. For example, in Brazil there are graduate programs of plant breeding at Escola Superior de Agricultura "Luiz de Queiroz"/ Universidade de São Paulo–Piracicaba, São Paulo (ESALQ/USP–Piracicaba, SP); Universidade Federal de Viçosa– Viçosa, Minas Gerais (UFV–Viçosa, MG); Universidade Estadual Paulista–Jaboticabal, São Paulo (UNESP–Jaboticabal, SP); Universidade Federal de Lavras–Lavras, Minas Gerais (UFLA–Lavras, MG); Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina–Florianópolis, Santa Catarina (UFSC–Florianópolis, SC); Universiade Estadual de Maringá–Maringá, Paraná (UEM–Maringá, PR); Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco–Recife, Pernambuco (UFRPE–Recife, PE); and Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense–Campos, Rio de Janeiro (UENF–Campos, RJ).
Information from the U.S. surveys in 1994 and 2001, provide insight into the situation in the United States and probably other industrialized countries. The declining number of breeders and reduced support for breeding in the universities have implications for education and training of future breeders not only in the United States but also globally, since U.S. universities have historically trained substantial numbers of breeders from other countries. That relationship is mutually beneficial because students who are studying for their degree also participate in valuable research that benefits U.S. agriculture. Whether there will be sufficient capacity in the U.S. land grant universities and associated SAESs to educate and train the required numbers of new breeders to the quality needed remains an open question. The largest total reductions in breeders between 1994 and 2001 were at the SAESs, for those engaged in cultivar development and germplasm enhancement.
The persistent question—who will train future plant breeding in applied activities such as cultivar development?—is becoming more acute! Lagging support in the U.S. land grant universities, increasing education costs, and greater difficulty for non-U.S. students to obtain visas suggest that universities in developing and transition countries will have an expanded role. However, in many of those countries much of the breeding activity in the public sector is done in state and federal departments whose role is research and development rather than in public universities. Even in universities with faculties of agriculture that can offer education in plant breeding (e.g., University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria), faculty, facilities, and funds are too limited to either do breeding research and cultivar development or education and training at the graduate level.
The multidisciplinary nature of plant breeding and the likelihood a breeder will work at different breeding activities during their professional career underscore the need for breadth and depth in education which forms a conceptual framework and for training which is more crop specific and tactical in nature (Lee and Dudley, 2006; Morris et al., 2006). The practical training, which should complement the more formal education, should be practically oriented, field based, more crop specific, and relevant not only to where the students are training but also to the areas where they will be working. Although some of this training is often provided during the degree program, it is here that the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) can continue to play a crucial role (Khush, 2006) and that private companies must assume a greater role by offering internships and training programs coordinated with students formal education.
Education, Training, and Experience
Plant breeding is a science-based discipline that integrates core principles of genetics with other disciplines such as statistics, molecular and cell biology, plant physiology, and agronomy. Concurrent with changes in those disciplines, plant breeding also evolves with new concepts and ideas incorporated into breeding strategies and tactics. Plant breeders practicing today received education from diverse sources with varying degrees of specialization and practical training leading up to their initial job and evolving over time according to their experiences. So too the next generation of plant breeders must be schooled in topics that prepare them for future challenges, opportunities, and accomplishments.
Several key factors influence breeder education and preparation, for example:
These factors usually are cross-cutting; for instance a breeder may be working on an agronomic crop (e.g., dry beans) for a national research unit (e.g., public), located in a developing country, and focused on national and regional responsibilities for producing new cultivars. He or she may be responsible for some or all of the required operations in the program and have varying assistance from an array of support colleagues or from none at all. The quality and breadth of primary and secondary education, prior experience with farming and agriculture, and career aspirations and expectations of each student will also affect the make-up of their curriculum and training for professional careers.
I have been involved with plant breeding in the public and private sectors for nearly half a century and I can recall few if any programs and curricula that have evolved from a broad meeting of the minds over what constitutes optimal education and training for a plant breeder. Usually programs and curricula arise from the experience, wisdom, commitment, and dedication of a relatively few university faculty members to meet a perceived need or opportunity. This would be a good time to gather broad-based input from diverse people for education, training, and continuing education in countries with diverse needs. One approach would be to use a web-based Delphi study to determine the content, skills, and training necessary for future breeders (http://www.wilderdom.com/delphi.html). The experiences from successful programs that have produced substantial numbers of productive breeders and others for which the quality and quantity of trained breeders are problematic can be useful for designing future programs.
Even for well-conceived programs, the curricula often change for reasons other than providing a better, well-balanced education. For instance, during times of more affluent budgets, a few well-qualified individuals may be recruited to key positions usually in an attractive research area. Along with research that person may teach one or more courses often of their choosing—but not necessarily one that rounds out an optimal curriculum for plant breeding. Rather than filling program needs, it may be expedient to craft a faculty position description in broad terms, review the candidates, choose the "best" individual based on their likelihood of garnering grant money, provide them with an office, and wish them well. There should be periodic comprehensive evaluations of breeder training programs to determine whether they are serving the needs of the primary participants and potential beneficiaries—students, institutions and faculty; employers and agribusiness; and the taxpayer or consumer.
For the colleges and universities offering breeder education programs a single set of prescribed courses will not suffice to meet the varying requirements of different jobs that arise from the multidimensions of plant breeding and plant genetic improvement in an ever-changing, global market place. To meet this challenge one approach is to identify the diverse qualifications for different jobs related to breeding activities such as shown in Table 4. Alternatively, students can be prepared for the broad job categories defined in the U.S. breeder survey (i.e., breeding research germplasm enhancement, cultivar development and biotechnology, or whatever works best for each institution), keeping in mind realistic future job needs.
Based on collective input from students, faculty, breeders, and representatives from private business in developed and developing countries, the subject matter that should be considered when preparing students for careers in plant breeding and crop improvement is extensive (Baenziger, 2006; Bliss, 2006; Gepts and Hancock, 2006; Morris et al., 2006; Ransom et al., 2006). From the length of this list alone, it is not practical to gain a useful level of proficiency in more than a modest subset of the areas during most M.S. and Ph.D. programs with time periods of around 2.5 and 5.5 yr, respectively.
It is impractical to expect students with different career goals to have a similar level of competence in all areas of academic preparation. This dilemma can be addressed by determining a level of competency desired for each anticipated job area, as shown in Table 4. As each student prepares for different jobs related to one or more breeding activities, the competency level will differ. At each university, a knowledgeable committee can decide on what constitutes a desired level of competency for each academic area of preparation. For instance, the number and depth of courses, practical training and supplemental experience for each student would be specified to meet each competence level for areas required for different jobs (e.g., cultivar developer, breeding research scientist, field support technologist).
Competency Levels
One scenario might be as follows. A university may decide to offer M.S. and Ph.D. degrees through a plant breeding education and training program or as a option in a broader program (e.g., plant science). They could choose to provide education in a broad range of topic areas (i.e., all of some part of what appear in Table 4) or a limited number (e.g., cultivar development and germplasm development or biotechnology).
Each student and his or her guiding committee would choose the critical areas of academic preparation and supplemental education needed and the competence level of each to meet their goals. A student preparing to be primarily involved in cultivar breeding in a private company would want an expert level of competency in Mendelian or transmission genetics, principles and practice of plant breeding, and plant population genetics. They may wish to have a skilled level of competency in applied statistics and experimental design, microbial genetics and plant pathology, and quantitative genetics and quantitative trait loci manipulation. In addition a student intending to work in a developing country may wish to gain a skilled or fluent level of competency in participatory plant breeding in anticipation of the need to work extensively with local farmers to cover a wide range of needs with limited resources in a government department. After determining levels of competency required for the relevant areas of expertise, a list of courses, supplemental study, internships, etc. would be specified to fulfill degree requirements and meet educational and training goals.
This approach provides a flexible framework for the diverse needs of future breeder training to continually refresh the subject matter content in the core disciplines while retaining essential principles of plant breeding. While preparing for mainstream jobs in cultivar development and breeding research, it will allow for expansion into emerging new areas such as intellectual property rights, business management, regulatory issues, and participatory plant breeding to name a few.
Support for Breeder Education, Practical Training, and Career Growth
The costs of breeding programs are quite similar in both the public and private sectors (Frey, 1996). In the public sector, most of the costs come from public funds with small amounts from user fees and royalties. Private companies bear most of the costs themselves, with research and development expenditures dependent on revenue-producing products. However, for both sectors the costs of educating and training breeders are supported mostly from public funds.
There is general agreement that optimal education of professionals working in crop improvement will involve formal education and practical training (Lee and Dudley, 2006). The formal part of education culminating in a degree or certificate will likely be provided through colleges, universities, and institutes. Practical training, preferably with a practicing breeder engaged in cultivar development can be gained by working on breeding projects during the degree program, internships before or following a degree program, and on-the-job training with an employer as an initial orientation.
Much of the infrastructure support for breeder education at colleges and universities is included in ongoing educational support from public funds and private donations. However, there is keen intra-institution competition for funds to support the necessary infrastructure. How easy is it to secure funds to build new greenhouses for maintenance of plant materials, crossing, screening etc.? Are there labs suitable for classes tailored for the specialized classes associated with advanced topics of breeding? Are there teaching assistant positions available to assist with labor-intensive courses and can those assistant positions be allocated to advanced breeding students as part of their support package? These resources can be garnered more easily if the institution has a good program that is attractive to prospective breeding students. With supporting infrastructure and well-designed curricula, some of the best and brightest students who have won competitive fellowships may be attracted and they will be competitive for additional funding from scholarships and grants.
The IARCs are well placed to provide supplemental education and practical breeder training, and although they are not degree-granting institutions they may be affiliated with a college or university. They have made major contributions to breeding training through in-service, research and postdoctoral fellowships, M.S. and Ph.D. scholars, and continuing education (Khush, 2006). Often they have programs that encompass applied research, germplasm development and development of new cultivars destined for trial and ultimately release in conjunction with national programs. Funds for those programs should be provided through budgets of each center, from support brought by, for example, postdoctorals, and donor-specified support for targeted needs of individual countries.
In both developed and developing countries it is essential to remind governmental agencies of their responsibility to support not only general education but also specialized degree programs to assure a continuing supply of new breeders. Many times, support is sporadic based on the false assumption that a small cadre of professional breeders will suffice for several decades. On the contrary, well-trained professionals in any field will be the first ones chosen for new opportunities, and without a continuing flow of new breeders none will remain to conduct field and lab research and train the next generation.
Continuity is critical for breeder training, since as Morris et al. (2006) point out from 15 to 20 yr can elapse from the time a graduate student begins until new cultivars are forthcoming. To wait until there are signs of critical shortages will be too late to sustain the essential link in a viable seed system. Such has been the case in many developing countries that now have a dysfunctional or nonexisting plant breeding infrastructure (Guimaraes et al., 2006).
The direct and indirect costs for obtaining a degree are substantial and will vary greatly depending on several variables such as length of degree program (certificate, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.), and the location and type of degree-granting institution. Morris et al. (2006) estimated that total cost of supporting a student from a developing country for an M.S. or Ph.D. degree at a typical U.S. land grant university would be in the range of $150,000 to $200,000. They did not elaborate on the composition of those figures, but most likely the fully loaded costs in a developed country would be at least $250,000. Since the costs will be substantial regardless of where training occurs, the degree should be completed as quickly as possible, without sacrificing breadth and quality.
Categorically, society derives benefits from genetically improved new cultivars—the products of plant breeding. Therefore public funds for breeder education and training should be provided. The consequences of abdicating that responsibility in many developing countries are a nonproductive agriculture sector and people who are undernourished and lack opportunities to generate adequate income for daily needs. Other stakeholders gain value from plant breeder education and should be expected to contribute incrementally to the cost of breeder education (Table 5 ).
|
Public institutions provide considerable indirect support for education in the form of buildings, classrooms, labs, etc. Faculty mentors not only provide a service to the student but also receive assistance from students performing research with them. Many faculty secure funds for assistantships relating to research projects and so contribute to student education. However, funding for applied research especially aimed at new cultivar development is increasingly difficult to obtain.
Each student is the direct beneficiary of education provided that well-paying jobs are available when they finish and that the compensation and opportunities for advancement are competitive with comparable professions. Baenziger (2006) noted that it is important not only to have job opportunities for new graduates, but also breeders displaced by mergers and other changes in the market place must see opportunities to continue working in their profession. This can be facilitated by a high quality, broad education and continuing opportunities that allow breeders to seek new skills and capacity.
Attracting and Recruiting the Next Generation of Breeders
Whereas in the past many U.S. breeders were from farms or rural communities, that is not the case today. In contrast to seeing products of breeding growing in the fields around them, many of today's prospective breeders will have little familiarity with production agriculture. For many, agriculture is not held in high esteem, and piquing the interest of a student in a specialized profession within the agriculture sector is a challenge.
It will fall to professional breeders, businesses depending on breeders, and educational institutions that offer programs and curricula in breeding to provide meaningful and relevant information and help recruit students. Foremost, a profession should offer good job opportunities, competitive compensation, and opportunities for professional attainment and advancement. As educational costs continue to increase, students and parents look more closely at different professions and weigh future opportunities for well-paying jobs that offer advancement.
Summer employment, part-time jobs, and internships with breeders and other scientists in the lab and field at the universities and companies can be used to interest students through first-hand experience. Other means are through participation in job fairs, open houses, and field days in the agricultural communities, and speaking at high schools and clubs where students have already made some self-choice of topics of interest.
Education and preparation of breeders for opportunities and challenges they will encounter should be futuristic and realistic. It is necessary to explain what is expected of a plant breeder during education and what types of jobs are currently available and likely to be there when he or she is in the job market. It is critical to the well-being of humankind that some of the best and brightest students become professional breeders.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONREFERENCES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
