
Plant Breeders Release First 'Open Source Seeds' - ptwobrussell
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/04/17/303772556/plant-breeders-release-first-open-source-seeds
======
sdfjkl
I bought some tomatoes at the supermarket. I ate some of them and decided they
were really tasty. I squeezed the squishy stuff from some of them into a bowl
and fermented it to get the seeds out of their growth-inhibiting sacks. I
planted these and now I have tasty tomatoes growing on my windowsill.

If anyone thinks they have any rights to these seeds that I paid for (as part
of the tomatoes), they're wrong on several levels, and if there is legislation
that says they're not wrong, that legislation is in dire need of repair.

~~~
scottcha
You don't really even need legislation. Most produce you buy from the
supermarket are from F1 Hybrids [1] which if you plant the seeds are highly
variant and lack vigor (i'm not sure of the % of tomatoes in supermarkets are
F1s specifically though). This is one natural way things like this have not
come to reality and one way most seed producers (especially ones focused on
commercial use) use to protect their varieties.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid)

~~~
jqm
Agreed. You can't generally won't get the same plant from a commercially
produced tomato. Instead you will get all kinds of random stuff. Some of it
may produce good tomatoes, some may not.

If you are going to go to the effort of growing a garden it's probably worth
spending a buck or two and getting some Heirloom or open pollinated seeds.
These will breed true and you can replant the seeds from the fruits and get
the same plant as the parent.

------
logfromblammo
People have been sharing heirloom variety seeds with each other for a long
time, along with their local sourdough cultures, kefir mother cultures, yeast
strains, and other re-propagatable biological source materials.

So it is great that professional horticulturists recognize the value of that
enough to contribute their work to the system. Home-hobbyist
gardeners/bakers/zymurgists/etc. simply don't have access to the same
techniques used for commercial production.

It would also be great if a professional could curate a biological
distribution package for food polycultures. A lot of people are familiar with
the "three sisters" polyculture of corn, beans, and squash, but there are
presumably others that would work just as well. Additionally, we now know that
the microbiota of the soil itself can be as important as the genomes in the
seeds. What if you could make your potting soil resemble Iowa corn field
topsoil by pouring a few mL of open source dirt juice into it?

~~~
HNJohnC
Nice comment, however I doubt any informed gardener would want to emulate Iowa
corn field topsoil, it probably has just slightly more biota in it than the
Atacama desert at this point.

~~~
Loughla
This is why the movement away from large-scale, super intense farming isn't
gaining much traction. When your argument is founded on hyperbole like that,
it is ineffective, condescending, and generally not productive.

There is a vast, vast, vast difference in the quality of soil in a desert, and
the places where your food comes from. Most farmers are aware of topsoil
management and conservation, most practice some form of both of those things.
The local university extension offices are hyper-active in farming
communities, and most farmers not only support, but practice sustainability
practices including no-till, reducing chemical dependency, proper crop
rotation and set-aside practices. Believe it or not, we all understand that
there is only so much soil to use, and conserving what we can would be in our
best interest.

Large corporations do not, for the most part, that is true.

But, I digress. You want to help your viewpoint? Lose the hyperbole. It causes
people to bristle automatically (see this post for an example).

------
viggity
Having worked in R&D (molecular breeding dept) of <insert huge agribusiness>
for 4 years, this article has highlighted that I do in fact suffer from Gell-
Mann Amnesia.

There a great many things that this article gets wrong/not quite right, and
yet I'll probably read the next NPR story and think "oh, that is interesting".
[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-
gel...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-
amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you)

~~~
emhart
Would love to read a detailed analysis of the article. I'm presently a front-
end dev for a gardener's supply company, so my curiosity is piqued.

~~~
viggity
1\. they kind of implied that the seed companies build in a "security lock" on
hybrid plants. Hybrid progeny have wildly different/non-uniform offspring
because that is just the way genetics work. You have two pools of inbred (100%
or near homozygous) plants, you cross pollinate them and they have very
uniform results because they have pretty uniform genetics and have "hybrid
vigor". The next generation (what the farmer harvests) has likely been open
air pollinated has a garbled mess of genetics and will therefore underperform
if planted. Enough so that it isn't worth trying to re-plant instead of buying
new seed. It depends of the species however, Corn is like this, but soybeans
are a self pollinating plant so hybrid soybeans aren't really a thing.

2\. Not all plants are patent-able, only ones that reproduce asexually.
Monansto/DuPont don't patent varieties of corn or soybeans as they don't
reproduce asexually, but they DO patent gene insertions (aka BioTech Traits,
or BT traits). Getting a gene that kills rootworm or has glyphosate (roundup)
resistance is mind bogglingly expensive. When a variety has multiple traits
inserted you'll hear it called "a stack". These high cost, high benefit
efforts are precisely the kinds of things we would want to be patent-able to
encourage companies to invest the huge amount of resources.

~~~
troymc
In response to 1: If all the genetics in a crop are nearly identical, that may
make the crop uniforms and predictable, but it also makes the crop uniformly
susceptible to drought, disease or crop predators (e.g. insects). That's great
if you're in the business of selling chemicals to kill specific diseases or
predators, but not so great if you have to buy them. A genetically diverse
crop will have have some plants that can withstand whatever.

The crop yield may be lower, but the cost of inputs (e.g. chemicals) will also
be lower. If the goal is to maximize farmer profit, then there may be a more
optimal solution that uses greater genetic diversity.

~~~
viggity
Well, you're still going to have many varieties (genetic profiles). The big
seed companies will sell 5-10 varieties per region. Regions depend on growing
season length, soil conditions, climate. Iowa has 7 regions, IIRC. If I had to
guess in the whole country there are ~100+ regions. That means thousands of
hybrids across the different seed companies across the country. So even if a
pest knocked out one variety (which doesn't really happen), it isn't like the
whole system is going to come crumbling down. They spend billions researching
it and there are lots of rules regarding "refuge" to ensure that insects and
diseases don't build up a tolerance to treatments.

Usually when you hear about people worry about "the mono-culture" they are
advocating that we plant more of a different types of plants (canola,
sunflower, sorghum, wheat), not different varieties of corn/beans.

Also, that they are all identical is bit of a misnomer. They are, but they are
exceptionally strong, vigorous plants (google "hybrid vigor" or "heterosis").

------
spodek
This idea makes sense at first blush, at least to this non-plant-breeder.

At first I wondered how much of a difference it could or would make since
while in software anyone can code in their free time, how many people can
splice a gene? But if they get universities to join the effort so that work at
that university has to result in Free seeds, I could see it catching on and
working.

As a planter, I'd certainly prefer to have seeds that minimized risks of legal
hassle.

I would also be curious to see what would happen when the reverse of one of
Monsanto's legal attacks happened -- if Free seeds made their way into
Monsanto's stock, could their legal attack on farmers be used against them? Or
de-fanged?

~~~
dragonwriter
> At first I wondered how much of a difference it could or would make since
> while in software anyone can code in their free time, how many people can
> splice a gene?

Lots of people have the skill, and there are lots of universities and private
labs (though probably few private individuals, compared to the parallel case
with software) with the required hardware and facilities.

~~~
searine
The skill isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting the money to make the
plant.

The problem is that molecular biology often doesn't work. So it takes lots of
time and experiments to get it right. Which costs money. Lots of money.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The skill isn't the hard part.

Right, which is why I said that fewer (though many) people have the other
resources.

> The problem is that molecular biology often doesn't work. So it takes lots
> of time and experiments to get it right. Which costs money. Lots of money.

And there's lots of people _doing it now_.

The real question isn't "does anyone have the resources to use these", its
"can anyone come up with a business model where it makes sense to use these
for further development".

------
afandian
It's insane that this isn't the default position. This is a very positive step
but simultaneously depressing, highlighting the dire situation that Monsanto
and friends have manoeuvred us into.

~~~
nas
It used to be the case but there are powerful groups having good success in
changing it (and making great profits as a result). See
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2014/03/26/can-
this-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2014/03/26/can-this-man-
feed-the-world-billionaire-harry-stines-quest-to-reinvent-agriculture-again/)
for one story.

Controlling the germplasm for staple crops like soybeans and corn is hugely
profitable. As a percentage of crop inputs, the cost of quality seed has been
rising at a crazy rate. Allowing patents of genes _is_ one way of directing
money to plant breeding. However, I think long term it is a bad policy, much
like allowing extremely long copyright terms on creative works. Society will
suffer when the available public domain material shrinks.

------
nymph
Strange that a practice that has been practiced for tens of thousands of years
by cultures all over the world has to stake a legal claim for itself, and re-
brand as "Open Source" in order to survive.

Very, very strange.

~~~
nas
Not so strange when you realize the amount money flowing to the breeders or
their dominance over staple crop seed. US soybean area is expected to be about
83.6m acres. Patented soybean seed costs roughly 35 $/ac more than non-
patented. That's close to 3 billion revenue to patent holders in a single year
(patented seed has >90% market share).

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to GMO. It could be a valid and safe
breeding technique. The campaign to brand it as dangerous or evil is without
scientific basis. However, I am very much against the patenting of genes,
genetic traits, seeds, etc.

------
dnautics
To be slightly pedantic, It's more like a GNU seed... And I would hesitate to
call it the first, people have been doing this for millennia. But it's great
to see push back against plant patents here.

------
trekky1700
I think this is bad, not because I don't like open source other things, but
the patenting and commercialization of genes is something that we cannot
permit. Establishing the difference between regular seeds and open source
seeds is a step in the wrong direction, as there should never be a time that
that distinction is necessary.

~~~
Houshalter
Why? If a company can make a better crop, they should be allowed to
commercialize it and make money off it. No one should be forced to pay for
patented crops (which is somewhat of an issue in some cases due to cross
contamination), but otherwise I don't see what the benefit is in banning
private research.

~~~
chmike
The assumption that a company can make a "better crop" is naive. There is
nothing like a "better crop". It may be better about some features. What is
underestimated is that it may have introduced regression on others yet
unnoticed or disregarded. Bioengineering is very complex and currently based
on trial and error. It's not yet true engineering.

Transpose this to software development. Is a modified program correct and
without regressions because it "works" ? Until we don't fully understand how
all the biochemestry works it's like changing the software code in semi random
ways and see if something "better" comes out of it. What fool would do that in
software engineering ?

~~~
Houshalter
If it wasn't "better" than farmers wouldn't buy it/use it. Maybe it's quality
is debatable but then they are free to debate and decide.

None of that has anything to do with patents.

~~~
chmike
It can be a better look to be bought and decrease the taste quality. Very
frequent in todays vegetables found on hypermarkets.

------
Centigonal
Staple crops are pretty important to the welfare of almost everyone in the
country that uses them, right? Developing them is expensive and requires lots
of people with high-grade scientific educations, right?

To me, that sounds like the kind of situation that would benefit from being
made public. I mean, the theory makes sense: taxpayers share the burden of
developing the plants they all consume. Something like the NSF's grant funding
for most other science would work really well. This kind of situation would
also facilitate a more permissive attitude toward sharing knowledge and seeds
to help intellectuals and hobbyists (the same way universities make resources
in other fields available to intellectuals and hobbyists).

------
jqm
Cool post.

But this idea isn't new at all.

In fact most of the "cheap" seeds you see on seed racks at stores like the
dollar store are "open source". Seeds like Black Seed Simpson Lettuce and
Kentucky Wonder Pole Beans for instance.

One has to remember that people have been breeding for thousands of years
before seed patents came into being and there are many many patent free
varieties. These are seldom are grown commercially because hybrids have
preferable characteristics for commercial growers, but for home growers and
smaller market gardens they have stood the test of time.

It is neat that people are continuing to do this with new varieties, but the
concept is hardly novel and these are not even close to the "first open source
seeds".

------
aaron987
Interesting. I remember a few years ago, Craig Venter did something where he
"signed" a genetic sequence with a specific code snippet to make sure the
experiment worked as expected [1]. Do you think they could do something like
that here to make sure nobody is using this in proprietary seed? In other
words, insert a specific code in the DNA, then if there is ever a legal
dispute about where the seeds came from, just sequence it and look for that
code.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-
venter-...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-
synthetic-life-form)

------
kseistrup
Here's a link to OSSI — the Open Source Seed Initiative ⌘
[http://www.opensourceseedinitiative.org/](http://www.opensourceseedinitiative.org/)

------
wturner
This is an example of a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the
first place. Its a "hardware solution" to a problem that at its root is a
cultural assumption. The people who developed these seeds apparently needed to
go the 'long way around' just to circumvent a preexisting absurdity with
something as marginally absurd in hopes of incremental gains.

It's like fighting stupid with stupid where whoever is the most clever at it
"wins".

------
malandrew
I'm wondering if it is possible to "GPL" open-source seeds to nullify the
Monsanto round-up ready canola seed issues. i.e. Imagine a thought experiment
whereby GPLed seeds somehow make it into Monsanto's seed stock and over many
generations ends up in a significant percentage of Monsanto seed.

------
theotown
Monsanto will cross-breed these immediately, right? :-D

