BUSINESS AND REGULATORY NEWS

http://biotech.nature.com • MAY 2002 • VOLUME 20 • nature biotechnology 417

April began with the announcement of amajor cross-licensing agreement

between DuPont (Wilmington, DE) andMonsanto (St. Louis, MO) affecting geneti-cally engineered crop varieties. It was fol-lowed quickly by news that several inde-pendent but cooperating teams of scien-tists, including researchers at Syngenta’s(La Jolla, CA) Torrey Mesa ResearchInstitute (TMRI), were releasing genomicdata for several nutritionally and economi-cally important strains of rice.

Although hardly a trend, these examplesof data sharing and cross-licensing agree-ments arising from the otherwise intenselycompetitive plant research and develop-ment fields seem a welcome sign that notall is cutthroat competition in the life sci-ences, despite recent anxieties to the con-trary. Indeed, concerns over apparenttrends in the opposite direction led offi-cials at the National Academy of Sciences(NAS; Washington, DC) earlier this year toconvene a new committee whose membersare charged with seeking “community stan-dards for sharing publication-related dataand materials.”

Several members of the NAS committee,which is being chaired by Thomas Cech,

president of the Howard Hughes MedicalInstitute (Chevy Chase, MD), say they areparticularly worried that researchersincreasingly are hoarding valuable researchmaterials and refusing to disclose data inways that threaten the progress of science.Although some scientists blameresearchers in the biotechnology industryfor promoting these data- and material-hoarding tendencies, others acknowledgethat university-based researchers are also atfault for indulging similarly antisocialbehavior—either because they seek to pro-tect findings with potential commercialvalue or because they are fiercely trying todisadvantage their competitors at otheracademic institutions, where recognitionby peers for priority discovery and grantsupport are the typical stakes.

One touchstone issue for several NAScommittee members revolves around thedifferent approaches taken by those dis-closing human genomics data: data fromthe public consortium was disseminatedimmediately and freely, whereas the releaseof human genome sequence data andanalyses developed by researchers at CeleraGenomics (Rockville, MD) was restrictedto paying subscribers. These distinct prac-

Rice data release signals industrywillingness to share data

with the critics that “the original interpreta-tions by Quist and Chapela were incorrectand represent artifacts.” Furthermore, hewas unconvinced by the additional data inthe latest paper. “I’m not certain what theyhave detected, but still question whether itreally is a transgene inserted in the maizegenome.” CIMMYT has also repeatedlyasked the Berkeley researchers to send themtheir samples for re-analysis, but has not sofar received them.

Some of the harshest criticisms, though,have come from the academic groups thathighlighted the November paper’s short-comings. Wayne Parrott of the Departmentof Crop and Soil Science at the University ofGeorgia (Athens, GA) submitted a critiqueto Nature that ultimately was not publishedbecause it had pointed up much the samedefects as other critical submissions. He istroubled by the journal’s surprising offer toallow Quist and Chapela to publish furtherdata supporting their earlier thesis. TheBerkeley researcher merely “came up withmore data to bolster the one point everyoneseems to agree with,” he says, “that there aretransgenes in Mexico, even if their data donot prove it.” “Quite frankly,” says Parrott,“the time to supply data is prior to publica-tion, not afterward. This idea of publishfirst, come up with the data later, under-mines the foundation of the publicationprocess.”

One particularly contentious statementin the original paper was that “the trans-genic DNA construct seemed to havebecome re-assorted and introduced intodifferent genomic backgrounds, possiblyduring transformation or recombination.”In support of this claim, Quist and Chapelahad cited a study published by anotherBerkeley researcher, Wojtek Pawlowski, inthe Proceedings of the National Academy ofScience (95, 12106–12110, 1998). Pawlowskisays, however, that the citation of his workwas “largely inaccurate. I demonstrated thattransgenes can integrate into the oatgenome at several distinct locations, butnot that transgenes move around thegenome by recombination after integra-tion.” This claim—in effect that transgenicDNA was moving around the genome in away that had not been seen before—wasparticularly germane to subsequent eventsbecause, according to Luis Herrera-Estrella,it was the one that most inflamed theMexican congress, precipitating the legisla-tive amendment. Matthew Metz of theDepartment of Microbiology of theUniversity of Washington (Seattle, WA),whose critique of the Quist and Chapelapaper was one of the two published onApril 4, says that although the Berkeleyresearchers “clearly needed to apologize for

this claim,” they have but “skirted aroundthe issue.” In fact, in their response to theircritics, says Metz, “Quist and Chapela justcite [Pawlowski] again in support of thesame point.”

Although there may still be a bad tasteleft in the mouths of some parts of theresearch community over this affair, mat-ters are moving forward in Mexico. Theresults of the two government-backedinvestigations—at the National Institute ofEcology (INE; Mexico) and CINVESTAV—

EuropaBio’s Hugo Schepens says that politiciansand political groups should learn not to react tooprecipitously to reports of new scientific findings.

©E

urop

a B

io

into the presence of transgenes in Mexicanmaize and its consequences should be avail-able within a matter of weeks. Speaking theday after Nature had withdrawn its supportfor the Quist and Chapela paper, ExequielEzcurra, president of INE, said that theresults of INE’s studies—which will includeSouthern blots, ELISAs, and functional testsfor herbicide resistance—would probablybe completed within a month. He addedthat more time would be made available ifnecessary. The work, he said, would be published in “international science journalssuch as Nature … to clear up any confusion.”

No one in Mexico is talking officiallyabout the results of the studies that havebeen completed so far. Luis Herrera-Estrellasays that it is possible that they will confirm,as virtually everyone suspects already, thatthere is transgenic gene flow to Mexicancriollo maize. However, Herrera-Estrellastresses that it is important that the govern-ment studies will at least be complete andthat their results will be presented soberly toallow their real implications to be assessed.

John Hodgson, Cambridge, UK

©20

02 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://b

iote

ch.n

atu

re.c

om

nature biotechnology • VOLUME 20 • MAY 2002 • http://biotech.nature.com

BUSINESS AND REGULATORY NEWS

418

analyze the smaller genome of Arabidopsisthaliana, a simpler weedy plant belongingto the mustard family.

Data describing the draft genomicsequence of rice also are being offered tothe International Rice Genome SequencingProject to aid other researchers involved inrice genomic sequencing efforts, whereasdata will be provided to researchers work-ing in the commercial sector through anagreement with Syngenta. “This approachto sharing data will allow Syngenta to con-tribute to building agricultural knowledgein the public domain, and protect the com-mercial value of our investment,” saysSteven Briggs, president of TMRI and headof genomics at the company. These actionsare part of a company initiative “intendedto bring together public and privateresearchers to coordinate research efforts,avoid duplication, and ensure the timelydelivery of a finished rice genome sequencein a public domain ….”

The same week that researchers atSyngenta and in China, Japan, and elsewherewere releasing rice genomics data, officialsfrom Monsanto, DuPont, its subsidiaryPioneer Hi-Bred International (Des Moines,IA), and their affiliates announced a broad-

tices have many biologists still fuming,more than a year after the principal scien-tists were accorded White House tributesduring Bill Clinton’s presidency.

To be sure, the publicity surrounding therecent release of rice genomics data did notinclude White House ceremonies. Nor didthe more muted celebrations appear torequire the same levels of forbearance andon-the-spot diplomacy, despite the involve-ment of Syngenta, a biotechnology compa-ny whose ambitions doubtless rank some-where near those of Celera. In this case,however, Syngenta announced in April thatit was making segments of the rice draftgenomic sequence available to academicresearchers “without reach-through rights”through the TMRI website or in more com-plete form on a CD-ROM format, and thatit eventually would publish those sequencedata in GenBank or a comparable publicrepository. According to the company, therice genome that the TMRI scientists ana-lyzed contains 420 million basepairs ofDNA arrayed on 12 chromosomes, andappears to encode about 45,000 genes. Riceis now the second higher plant to have itsgenomic sequence determined, followingsuccessful efforts announced late in 2000 to

based business agreement that “gives[DuPont and Monsanto] cross-licenses toenabling technologies that enhance the per-formance of corn, canola, and soybean crops….” Among other things, the companies have“resolved all issues related to certain previ-ously contested germplasm” and also “agreeto dismiss all pending lawsuits, fully resolv-ing a number of important business andpatent disputes ….”

“This is a groundbreaking agreement …[that] further ensures that farmers can usethe best of what both companies have tooffer,” says Howard Minigh, group vicepresident for DuPont Agriculture andNutrition. It represents a “positive develop-ment for how the agricultural industrybrings innovations to market … [and] setsa new constructive tone,” adds Hugh Grant,who is chief operating officer forMonsanto.

Perhaps NAS committee members canadd these examples to the case studies thatfall within their purview. Companies in thebiotechnology sector might even providesome useful insights that lead to “commu-nity standards for sharing publication-related data and materials.”

Jeffrey L. Fox, Washington, DC

©20

02 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://b

iote

ch.n

atu

re.c

om