marker-assisted selection in wheat - ictsd

Chapter 21 – Marker-assisted selection as a potential tool for genetic improvement: debating the issues 431Main themes discussedWhether MAS should be a priority indeveloping countriesThe general opinion was that MAS couldbe usefully applied for genetic improvementof plants and animals in developingcountries, but that it would not necessarilyrepresent a priority. Gianola (6) pointedout that in order for MAS to be taken upin developing countries, because of thescarcity of resources the returns to investmentshould be far superior compared withthose for a developed country, given thesignificant opportunity costs. Africa wasmentioned as facing major constraints toagricultural production, including droughtstress, low soil fertility and pests, whichwere not easily and economically amenableto MAS. Koudandé (68) and Seth (26)stressed the importance of priority-settingin the context of national agricultural economies.Crop diversification and research onunderutilized species were also mentionedas other possible priorities for addressingproblems of the expanding human population(Priyadarshan, 11 and 71). Murphy (1)suggested that tremendous gains could bemade in agricultural development withoutresorting to applications of biotechnology,by addressing issues of management andinfrastructure. For example, in the case ofBrazil, a priority might be improvementsin the road system to facilitate export cropsreaching the ports (Murphy, 1).Costs of MASThe cost associated with MAS was acommon theme during the conferenceand several participants, including Collard(9), considered it to be the most importantissue for developing countries. Itwas pointed out (e.g. De Koning, 13) thatalthough costs associated with MAS canbe high, conventional genetic improvementprogrammes can also be expensive. Gianola(2) called for an economic analysis of MASin comparison with conventional methods,specifically requesting estimates of internalrates of return. He (6) also warned that therewas a risk that some investments in MASmight be wasted given the advances beingmade in post-genomics. For Weller (4),“with respect to the economic questions,MAS is no different from any other technologythat increases rates of genetic gain,but also increases costs”, concluding thatthe investments required for MAS couldbe massive, but so also could the long-termeconomic gains. However, as pointed outby Montaldo (18), the economics of MASis based on the value of the selected traitsand most importantly, each case shouldbe looked at individually. De Koning (13)highlighted the major economic benefitsthat could be gained by breeding livestockfor resistance to trypanosomiasis.Various stages in the MAS developmentand application process were regarded asbeing costly. Labour and DNA extractionwere viewed by Williams (37) as representingthe major costs, but Collard (45) consideredequipment, consumables and infrastructureto be among the most costly items ina MAS programme. Genotyping (Toro,67), marker development (El Ouafi, 77;Wallwork, 59) and patenting (Ganunga,69) were other areas that represented largecosts that might constrain MAS use indeveloping countries. It was suggested thatfarmers in the developing world could notbe expected to pay for MAS (Chávez, 33),while Muralidharan (74) suggested that costsin a country like India would eventually bea lot cheaper than in developed countries.Participants, including Buijs (58),pointed out that technologies becomecheaper as knowledge accumulates andcapacity is built up, citing the example of