A coming era of “Revolutionary research breakthroughs”, was predicted already in the World Tree Breeding Consultations in 1963 and 1969 (FAO 1964, 1970). They were a reality in the Consultations in 1977 and 1998 (FAO 1979; Matyas 1999).
While providing opportunities for advance, all new technologies bring new risks. Furthermore, no scientific findings will work magic on their own. Success in their deployment requires both careful identification of needs, and opportunities to link new findings with existing technological, social and environmental packages (see e.g. FAO 2000, 2001c; Anon 2001, 2001c; Fresco 2001, 2001a; Visser 2001; Dargie 2002; Stannard 2002).
Development of biotechnological and molecular tools has risen to the forefront of science over the past years. Advances made are paralleled only by those in information technologies. Advantage must be taken of the exciting new opportunities these new technologies offer. If applied with intelligence, they will improve the precision and facilitate the work of the tree breeder of the future. However, while it is important to apply sophisticated techniques that can put the finishing touches on advanced varieties, at least as much effort must go to ensuring the development of the basic breeding populations. Findings in biotechnologies can only be capitalized if sound tree improvement programmes are in place within which the new technologies can be applied (Palmberg-Lerche 1999, 2002).
Furthermore, breeding always implies a commitment to greater domestication. Domestication implies good husbandry which, in forestry, means the application of improved techniques for plantation establishment and natural forest and plantation silviculture and management. Without concurrent improvement and application of these, and attention to logistics such as access and diffusion of better seeds to the users, breeding efforts, as well as investments in biotechnological research, will be wasted (Libby 2001; FAO 2002b).
In recent Sessions, the FAO Panel of Experts on Forest Gene Resources noted with concern the widening gap between science and practice, and stressed that successful application was at risk if knowledge produced at scientific level was more advanced than what the operational level was able to absorb and implement. A major constraint in the use of new biotechnological tools in forestry was, at present, the lack of skilled tree breeders able to understand and utilise the information generated by scientists and to ensure its application in practical, large-scale programmes. Inadequacy of funding for field level activities further hampered progress (FAO 1968-2002; see esp. 11th and 12th Sessions, 1999, 2001).
The Forest Gene Panel also noted that problems arose when sophisticated techniques were applied to un-developed genotypes, and when efforts were focused on advanced techniques without due attention to development of the basic breeding resource (Namkoong 2002; Namkoong et al. 2002.).
Appropriate allocation of resources to biotechnology, classical breeding and field activities, will not of itself ensure the right outcome, but it is a crucial prerequisite for it. The clear message is that the adoption of biotechnological tools must be part of a substantially increased commitment to genetic improvement and to forestry in general, rather than a switch of effort away from classical breeding and silviculture. Efforts must, in other words, be additive, rather than imply a replacement or substitution of one kind of activity with another (Burdon 1994; Namkoong 2001).
Furthermore, the gap in mutual understanding is widening in the presently on-going international policy dialogue, between “the international forest policy jet-setters” on the one hand; and on the other, the managers of forestry programmes at various levels, in national Forest Departments and forestry institutions. Field level, practical foresters are still further removed from high-level decisions and commitments made in international fora, however they are expected to implement, monitor and report upon field and follow-up action. The increasingly multi-disciplinary nature of today’s forest policy dialogue, in which a range of political and environmental concerns are super-imposed on forest policies, frequently dominating the outcome, tends to further alienate the conceptual and practical levels.
In this scenario, the attraction of further isolating science from practice is a big temptation, as in so doing, the complex issues of needs, feedback, implementation and links with other fields related to forestry, can be left aside, as somebody else’s problem. The glamour surrounding cutting-edge science (Fresco 2001) and dreams of major profit opportunities, can easily distort research priorities, drawing investment away from traditional fields and field level application, without which, however, science is a blind alley.
The statements of a powerful private company executive, who participated in a recent discussion forum on biotechnologies in plant breeding, were truly amazing. He noted that, “competition from conventional breeding poses a barrier to attracting funding and support for new biotechnologies”. This, according to him, was due to the fact that, “most breeding programmes are now in only their second or third generations and, therefore, traditional methods can still yield sizable gains” (Anon 2002c). He thus implied that the fact that traditional plant breeding could yield “sizable gains”, was indeed lamentable! Underlying these statements was the fact, also discussed in the forum, that getting a GM crop or plant variety on the market would cost in excess of $US 30 million, to which regulatory costs added a further $US 5-6 million; while developing new varieties using traditional plant breeding methods, would cost only a fraction of this Fresco 2001a). The question, then, was: was investment in unknown technologies really necessary, if selection and breeding, coupled with good resource management, could make major advances?
Reviewing presently used new biotechnologies in forestry, the most useful application is in the field of molecular and genetic markers. The value of these tools, if used wisely, is unquestioned (Burdon 1994; Haines 1994; FAO 2001c; Namkoong 2001).
Regarding genetic engineering, while 60% of all processed foods in the USA are today genetically modified, including mostly products from soybeans, corn and canola (Fresco 2001a), no commercial plantations of GM trees have been established to date. However, according to records, genetic modification is under experimentation in some 25 species of poplar, eucalypt and pine. Techniques include recombinant DNA and asexual gene transfer and, most frequently, aim to introduce herbicide and pest resistance, or to reduce or modify the lignin content of wood (FAO 2001a,b).
As noted by the late Gene Namkoong in his retirement seminar last year, present assumptions underlying work in gene transfer, generally grossly under-estimate the complexity of genetic systems and physiological processes. Interactions are the paradigm for gene actions in forestry, and epistasis is strong and complex. According to Namkoong, general effects which might be defined for genes, are not fixed, or even estimable as approximations or as average and variable effects. In regard to the present debate on biotechnologies in forestry, he noted that it unfortunately reflected, “a mechanical view of the world, in which it is increasingly thought that moving around pieces will make all the difference”; and that it misleadingly publicised the potential of single gene effects and transgenic technologies, with the underlying assumption that “genes for growth”, or “genes for overall adaptation to harsh environments”, could be found. Namkoong dismissed this as, “pursuing a Phantom” (Namkoong 2001). Needless to say, strong genotype x environment interactions, which will influence all traits, old and new, over the long life-cycles of forest trees, will further (from Man’s point of view) complicate the matters when targeting so called “agronomic traits” in forestry.
Biotechnologies, which often today in public debate are equated with genetic modification, are in many countries distrusted by the public, which sees these techniques as "meddling with evolution", as part of negative aspects of globalization and privatization, and as "anti-democratic". GM technology in food crops is thought to further foster farmers’ dependence on biotechnology companies and reduce farmers’ autonomy and right to decide, thus touching upon basic food security issues. Uncertainty about safety for humans and the environment, and a lack of perceived benefits for consumers, have further limited general acceptance of the very idea of genetic modification. Questionable research and questionable science is unfortunately increasingly published even in some of the world’s leading scientific journals, and this has been quickly and selectively picked up by other parts of the media, further firing the debate. Consequences include at times restrictive legislation, based on what my fisheries colleague Devin Bartley called, “policy makers’ perception of public perception” (Bartley 2002). Hopefully, in the future, the human fear driving such moves will, instead, lead us to good science-based risk assessment and good science which is perceived to, and does, benefit all groups of society.
