Neil Carman's comments precede this. Neil is a botanist with a PhD from UT,
Austin, and a member of the Sierra Club national Genetic Engineering Committee.

Tom

Subj:   GE trees Opinion piece - Duke GE Conifer Tree conf
Date:   11/30/2004 2:40:55 PM Central Standard Time
From:    [log in to unmask] (Neil Carman)
To:


Dr. Claire G. Williams organized the Duke GE conifer trees conference that I
attended and it was well balanced so she deserves a lot of credit for pulling
it together.


Neil
***

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1886933p-8217713c.html

Raleigh   *   Durham   *  Cary   *   Chapel Hill

Opinion

Topics: Editorials | Letters to the Editor
Columnists: Ford | Jenkins   Cartoons: Powell


POINT OF VIEW
   Published: Nov 30, 2004
Modified: Nov 30, 2004 8:03 AM

Genetics in the woods
Boughing to progress?

By CLAIRE G. WILLIAMS

DURHAM -- The recent forum at Duke University on the pros and cons of
genetically modified (GM) pine forests attracted a national and international
audience. On hand were venture capitalists, biotechnology firms, timber
corporations, state and federal government officials, academicians and
environmental groups. But some of the best questions came from private
landowners and forestry consultants here in North Carolina. As the organizer
of the forum, I'd like to share some of the questions -- and my answers.

Can a small wood-lot owner purchase genetically modified loblolly pine
seedlings?

Today the answer is no. Genetically modified loblolly pines or any other kind
of tree cannot be planted commercially even on private timberlands. Few tests
of genetically modified forest trees have taken place, and these are subject
to close federal government scrutiny. Each test tree is cut down before onset
of reproduction.

This question signals an immediate need for a continuing education workshop
on the genetic composition of our forested wood-lots, even if sales are based
on non-modified seedlings. Knowledge needed for choosing the right genetic
composition of a future forest is growing more complex, subject to
technological change. Few of our natural-resources majors in higher
education receive formal classroom training about the genetic composition of
forests, either old-growth or plantations. A workshop would update those few
professionals who have received formal classroom training.

Outreach to wood-lot landowners about the genetic composition of forest tree
seedlings is needed as a counterbalance to the state's progressive
investment in forest biotechnology. The emerging for-profit market in forest
seedling sales can only benefit from informed consumers. But a cautionary
note is needed: workshop instructors should be drawn from those who are not
on the payroll of any seedling seller, i.e., not state nursery employees,
biotechnology firms or timber companies.


Who will actually own the genes in genetically modified pines?


The landowner continued with this example: if genetically modified pine
pollen or seed moves from another's land onto my land and produces a forest, am I
going to be penalized for stealing the intellectual property of another? On the
other hand, who is liable for these escaped genetically modified pine seeds
or pollen anyway?

On the surface this seems a simple question. Yet genetically modified pines
are not equivalent to genetically modified row crops. Mature pines, as
perennial plants, produce copious seed and pollen each year (just look at
your windshield in spring!) for 10 or 20 years before timber harvest age.
Wind-dispersed pine seeds and pollen move across the landscape on the
scale of miles.

So the question is right on target. We do need some alternative thinking
about intellectual property management for genetically modified pines.

Intellectual property management as practiced by pharmaceutical and
agricultural biotechnology companies is simply not a good fit for forestry.
Controlling movement of pine genes onto less managed or even unmanaged
ecosystems is not a trivial problem to solve. Consider that landowner
patterns in North Carolina form a mosaic of national forests, corporate timberlands,
state forests, wildlife refuges and family timberlands.

Open dialogue on intellectual property management of genetically modified
pines now, before commercial release, would be a progressive and timely act.

Will genetically modified pines planted on private lands disperse seeds and
pollen to public forests?

We have no research to inform us on this question. Private forests will be
ever more technology-intensive. They are working forests, a necessity for
meeting our rising timber demands. But our state and national forests are adjacent
to intensively managed timberlands, and it seems doubtful that genetically
modified pines will be planted in public forests. Gene pollution could be the
sleeping giant for genetically modified pine commercialization.

The answer? Open dialogue now, well before commercial release. Open a
genetically modified forest dialogue for all types of concerned citizens in
North Carolina. Rethink whether we need or simply want genetically modified
pines. Fund research and even award a prestigious prize to any researcher who can
broaden value from our biotechnology investment beyond the creation of more
types of genetically modified trees.

This direction is consistent with sustaining timber production and protecting
our less managed forests. Genetically modified pines are not genetically
modified row crops. Healthy, well-adapted indigenous forests bode well for
all.



(Claire G. Williams, a geneticist, is a visiting professor at Duke
University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.)





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/