Review of Resource Genetic Engineering Outreach Programs and ORB Opportunities, Structure, and Funding

A. Definition of Biotechnology, ORB Activities, and Operational Context...............................1Goal Statement.........................................................................................................................1Scope / Definition of Biotechnology.......................................................................................1ORB Activities.........................................................................................................................1Operational Context.................................................................................................................1

B. Descriptions of Existing Resource GE Outreach Programs....................................................2Table 1. Contact information of comparable programs that communicate science ................2

C. Natural Resource GE: Ethics, Economics, Law.....................................................................2Oregon Programs and Experts.................................................................................................2National Experts in Resource Ethics.......................................................................................2Economist with Expertise in Biotechnology...........................................................................2Law Professor with Expertise in Biotechnology.....................................................................2Selected Resources, Workshops Focusing on Ethics and Legal Considerations.....................2Abstracts of NSF-Funded Ethics Projects...............................................................................2

D. Outreach for the General Public.............................................................................................2National....................................................................................................................................2Within Oregon.........................................................................................................................2

E. Continuing Education..............................................................................................................2Related Programs, Research, Resources..................................................................................2Sample Materials for Continuing Education...........................................................................2

F. Programs for Undergraduate Education..................................................................................2Oregon State University Academic Programs.........................................................................2Table 2. OSU Academic Programs with Relevance to ORB...................................................2Programs at Other Universities................................................................................................2

G. Precollege Programs and Materials........................................................................................2Selected K-12 Programs Based at Oregon State University....................................................2Examples of Programs for K-12 Teachers and Students (Nationally and Internationally).....2K-12 Instructional Materials, Educational Resources and Searchable Resource Databases...2

H. Structure of Program...............................................................................................................2I. Funding of Program..................................................................................................................2

Table 3. Examples of Funded Grants......................................................................................2

Review of Resource Genetic Engineering Outreach Programs and ORB Opportunities, Structure, and Funding

Report Prepared by Melora Halaj

A. Definition of Biotechnology, ORB Activities, and Operational ContextText in Section A provided by Steve Strauss, with minor editing by Melora Halaj

Goal StatementThe goal of the Outreach in Resource Biotechnology Program (ORB) is to play an active role in providing factually and contextually accurate information to the scientific community, governments, and the public on the scientific benefits, safety, and ethics of biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering (GE), in natural resources in Oregon, the United States, and the world.

Scope / Definition of BiotechnologyORB defines resource biotechnology to be the use of scientific methods for modifying the structure, physiology, and genetic constitution of biological organisms that are important natural resources management. Although there are a wide variety of benefits and ecological impacts from all forms of resource biotechnology, because of its controversy and high level of government regulation, our focus is on GE. GE is the use of recombinant DNA and asexual gene transfer methods to alter the structure or expression of specific genes and traits. GE is referred to as genetic modification (GM), and genetically modified organisms as GMOs, in Europe and many other parts of the world. As an independent academic organization, ORB’s views are those of its director, faculty, and staff; they do not reflect official positions of Oregon State University or the State of Oregon.

ORB Activities1) Create and maintain a web site to provide ready public access to ORB activities and

information; 2) Maintain a high level of awareness of regulatory and scientific developments, and make

those of particular relevance to ORB available through its web site; 3) Actively communicate scientifically accurate and ethically responsible information via

scientific publications, mass media, participation in conferences and panels, and university teaching;

4) Become part of a national and international network through which accurate and up-to-date information can be mobilized and provided to decision makers and media, and used in publications, in a timely manner;

5) Lead, or catalyze, the submission of grant proposals to fund selected interdisciplinary research and/or outreach programs on the scientific benefits and safety of natural resource biotechnologies.

Operational Context Inaccurate statements of fact and context are commonplace in public debates over biotechnology. This confuses and often scares the public inappropriately, and often seeks to manipulate the

1

variable levels of knowledge within the scientific and professional community itself. ORB therefore defines “ethically honest” contributions to the scientific debate as:

1) In context. Biotechnology issues should be considered in context with the long history of intensive genetic modification and use of exotic organisms in natural resources management. For example, all uses of new organisms and varieties carry the risks of qualitatively irreversible spread of genes and organisms.

2) Based on products not processes. ORB follows the longstanding scientific consensus that product (gene/trait function), not the process of genetic modification, is the primary consideration with respect to benefits and safety of the products of biotechnology. There remains no substantive evidence that recombinant DNA and asexual gene transfer methods themselves pose risks greater than commonplace, and unregulated, breeding practices such as movement of species and populations, hybridization among populations and species, cloning, inbreeding, and chemical or radiation mutagenesis. Biotechnology can be used to modify genes that are functionally common among origin and recipient species, as well as to impart novel functions from distant species. Knowledge about the specific genes and processes modified should, in many cases, make risk assessments more accurate than for genetic modifications based on gross phenotypes. ORB therefore regards debates at the level of “GMOs,” as well as regulations that treat all forms of GMOs in a similar way, as fundamentally political rather than scientific in nature.

3) Environmentally and socially holistic. Environmental and social issues are inherently complex; science often cannot identify which of several options, often considered under unpredictable climatic, social, and evolutionary milieu, offer the best environmental and humanistic path forward. ORB therefore regards simple, categorical statements such as “organic is safest,” “chemicals are bad,” “free markets are always superior,” “GMOs are the way forward,” or “a precautionary approach is always the best one” as counter-productive.

4) Appropriately precautionary. All progress, economic and environmental, is based on taking calculated risks; thus, a higher level of risk aversion is not necessarily better for humans or environment. Excess precaution imposes large opportunity costs, whereas insufficient caution can create large, unmanageable environmental and social impacts. The precautionary principle has been interpreted both as requiring the pursuit of selected GMOs to deal with growing world food and environmental challenges, as well as avoiding all GMOs. The precautionary principle in its simple form is therefore of little value for making decisions about the immense diversity of GMOs being produced—these vary depending on their social and environmental benefits, organisms modified, patterns of use, and ecosystems affected.

5) Socially responsible. Published statements from scholarly and humanitarian organizations such as National Academies of Sciences, the United Nations, The Rockefeller Foundation, and The Nuffield Foundation, and scientifically validated field results from the first generation of GE crops, leave no question that selected GMOs can be of tremendous humanitarian and environmental benefit both to the developed and developing world. ORB therefore does not endorse regulatory schemes and public relations campaigns that, by imposing disproportionate scrutiny and labeling requirements for all GMOs, impose costs and stigmas that effectively impede delivery of the benefits of biotechnology to society.

6) Respectful of others. ORB recognizes that depending on religious orientation and personal ethic the use of recombinant DNA methods to modify organisms employed in natural resources and/or medicine may be viewed as ethically unacceptable regardless of the product, benefit, and source of genetic information employed. ORB respects these views and the

2

rights of others to espouse them. However, ORB also believes that accommodations must be made in a free society not to impose their views on others. This includes respect for the rights of those who choose to use biotechnologies in agriculture for economic and environmental benefit. Because “zero tolerances” will not be permissible for normal agricultural crops grown outside of contained facilities, reasonable institutional allowances for low levels of unintended gene movement must be made by all parties to avoid conflict, lawsuit, and economic hardship.

3

B. Descriptions of Existing Resource GE Outreach ProgramsORB plans to share its expertise with policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and other professionals through a number of venues, including scholarly and other targeted publications, participation and/or hosting of national and regional conferences and panels, television and radio, university teaching, continuing education, and web sites of ORB and its partners nationally. A review of established resource GE outreach programs that target these audiences was carried out to collect basic information about their missions, services, and products, as well as to collect contact information for use by ORB staff.

Within the Pacific Northwest no other established program was located that focuses on communicating regulatory and scientific developments in natural resources GE to policymakers, regulators, business leaders, extension agents, and other professionals. A recently released report from the Washington State University Extension Service describes their desire to establish an Agriculture and Food Issues Policy Center. If established, it would address GE and other agriculture issues within the State of Washington. This proposed Center “would serve as a forum where controversial topics, ranging from water transfers to biotechnology can be identified, debated, and alternatives evaluated. Proposed priorities include developing a road map of technological, environmental, social, and market factors involved in agricultural productivity and competitiveness; linkages between natural resources, environment, agriculture and the food system; rural-urban interactions, particularly land use issues; agricultural personnel and labor issues, commodity market and agribusiness development issues, and globalization of the food system. The goals are to keep Washington’s industry viable and competitive and contribute to effective private and public decision making.” In the same report, Washington State University Extension also states that they are “uniquely positioned to provide technical and public policy education and facilitate public issues forums to help the people of the state make informed choices about the production and consumption of the products of biotechnology” (November 2004 report, http://ext.wsu.edu/about/documents/ExtBooklet.pdf). Thus, the report suggests that Washington State University Extension might in the future become more active in resource GE outreach that focuses on the State of Washington. The search for programs in the Pacific Northwest suggests that ORB is well positioned to meet current and future needs for education on resource GE throughout the Pacific Northwest, especially within Oregon.

Below are descriptions of resource GE outreach programs nationally and internationally that seek to inform policymakers, regulators, business leaders, extension agents, farmers, and other interested parties about resource biotechnology. ORB may wish to consider partnering with these programs and linking to their products and resources. Cornell University’s Genetically Engineered Organisms-Public Issues Education Project and University of California’s UCBiotech, described below, are most closely analogous to the planned activities and structure of ORB. (Quotes are from respective web sites, listed in Table 1.)

Agricultural Biotechnology, Kansas State University Extension offers online video clips on GE issues, a newsletter, fact sheets, and links to news articles.

AgBioWorld Foundation. This nonprofit organization has a declaration signed by 3200 scientists, information on biotechnology including “Response to GM Food Myths,” a PowerPoint® presentation on biotechnology and food security, and scientific journal articles addressing the safety of GM crops.

4

The Agricultural Technology Support Project II (ABSPII) of Cornell University “focuses on the safe and effective development and commercialization of bio-engineered crops as a complement to traditional and organic agricultural approaches in developing countries. The project helps boost food security, economic growth, nutrition and environmental quality in East and West Africa, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh and the Philippines.” It focuses on developing expertise in agricultural biotechnology research, policy, licensing, and outreach in these countries to reduce poverty and hunger. Based at Cornell, it is a consortium of public and private sector institutions. The project 1) “[conducts] highly-participatory priority setting activities to ensure that product development is focused on real needs; 2) [develops] “Product Commercialization Packages“ for each bio-engineered crop by geographical site, integrating activities on technology development, policy (including intellectual property), outreach and communication, and marketing and distribution; 3) [creates] an enabling environment for regulatory and legal authorities; 4) [fosters] public-private partnerships to boost mutual incentives and self-sustained, long-term investments; and 5) [promotes] improved science-based public awareness of bio-engineered crops.

Bio-Scope seeks to provide the general public and GE experts with access to scientific information. An online database and biotechnology experts answer questions. Abstracts of scientific articles, and updates on recent publications in newspapers and journals, are provided. Future plans include addressing risk and knowledge management.

Biotechnology: Food and Agriculture, Penn State University. “We have developed this educational website to help Pennsylvanians understand the issues and science surrounding Biotechnology. Penn State faculty and county-based educators share scientific information to help consumers, farmers, and interested citizens make informed decisions on the issue. In addition to the knowledge and perspectives from Penn State faculty and staff, information from other universities and science institutions, as well as government regulators, non-profit advocacy organizations and biotechnology industries is presented.” Based within Penn State Cooperative Extension, this program seeks to provide research-based information “that helps people understand the complexities and range of perspectives of biotechnology in food and agriculture.”

Biotechnology Industry Organization “[advocates] the industry’s positions to elected officials and regulators; [informs] national and international media about the industry’s progress, contributions to quality of life, goals and positions; and [provides] business development services to member companies, such as investor and partnering meetings. It hosts an annual convention and exhibition, addressing themes such raising capital in the venture and public markets; FDA, USDA and EPA regulation; and patenting trends.”

Biotechnology Questions and Answers, UC Davis, offers an online list of questions and answers about resource biotechnology topics. It also hosts a message board. It is not clear who at UC Davis maintains this web site.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) “assembles, interprets, and communicates science-based information regionally, nationally, and internationally on food, fiber, agricultural, natural resource, and related societal and environmental issues to our stakeholders—legislators, regulators, policy makers, the media, the private sector, and the public. CAST is a nonprofit organization composed of scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board of Directors is composed of representatives of the scientific societies and individual members, and an Executive Committee.

5

CAST was established in 1972 as a result of a 1970 meeting sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.” CAST hosts videoclips of experts answering questions about biotechnology.

Council for Biotechnology Information/Monsanto and other biotechnology companies. “The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) is a coalition of six of the world’s leading biotechnology companies and two trade associations. Its mission is to improve understanding and acceptance of biotechnology by collecting balanced, science-based information and communicating it through a variety of channels.” It targets its information to consumers, farmers, journalists and teachers and students. The web site offers a PowerPoint® presentation and brochure on the benefits of biotechnology, a CD on understanding biotechnology, white papers, and other publications.

European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) “[promotes] safe and ethically acceptable biotechnology for the better use of Nature’s resources. EFB also wishes to expand collaborations between academic and industrial researchers throughout Europe to increase competencies, strengthen education, promote innovation and increase the benefits of biotechnological research to society at large. Every second year, EFB holds a European Congress on Biotechnology, which typically attracts more than a thousand people. More than 3000 scientists and students throughout Europe currently participate in EFB’s Sections according to their special topical interests. In addition, the EFB has set up a number of Task Groups which deal with, for example, Public Perception of Biotechnology and formulate high-quality information about the use and application of biotechnology as well as with related ethical and safety aspects.” EFB membership is open to universities, scientific institutes, companies, national bioindustry associations, and individual members.

Genetically Engineered Organisms-Public Issues Education Project of Cornell University (GEO-PIE) aims to provide objective and balanced information about GE, including “an in-depth discussion of relevant scientific research, the areas of uncertainty, and the associated interpretations of the research” as well as related social and ethical issues. “The primary goal of this project is to develop materials for effective public issues education (PIE) capacity related to genetically engineered organisms among [extension] agricultural and nutrition educators.” GEO-PIE’s web site includes an analysis of the media’s treatment of GE, links to reports on public opinion about GE, fact sheets on GE topics, and lists traits that have been successfully introduced into plants.

GMO Guidelines Project seeks to develop guidelines and methods to evaluate risks from genetically modified organisms. “A group of public sector scientists from all over the world has been assembled under the patronage of the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) to develop the draft guidelines. The guidelines can be envisaged as a set of interlinked modules consisting of scientific questions related to risk assessment and corresponding scientific methodologies to answer those questions. The guidelines will have no regulatory legitimacy themselves, but regulatory authorities can choose to implement parts or all of the guidelines as they desire or need, with confidence in the scientific soundness behind the information gathered using our identified methodologies. They are designed for use on a case-by-case basis and before approval is given for the GMO plant, and they will cover the environmental and agricultural impacts of GMOs, but not human health impacts or ethical implications. The guidelines should eventually be applicable to most GM plants, but are at present focused on those GM plants modified to produce a novel gene product, currently used in pest control.”

6

Information Systems for Biotechnology, Virginia Tech offers monthly news reports, regulatory resources, and resources relating to risk assessment. “Resources are designed to serve the agricultural and environmental biotechnology community at large, including scientists, regulators, teachers, administrators, and the interested public.” ISB seeks to provide a balanced view of the potential risks and benefits of GE.

Institute of Forest Biotechnology is a North Carolina non-profit organization formed in 2001. In addition to pursuing research on tree GE and assessing and managing risks of the technology, the Institute plans to “Coalesce partnerships and projects to assist policy makers at the state, national and international levels;…Anticipate key areas in which forest biotechnology will involve societal issues: environmental, ethical, public response, educational and policy; Develop programs and activities…to address these issues; [and] Develop educational materials and programs that credibly convey the benefits, applications, issues and risks of forest biotechnology.”

National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, a consortium of 37 agricultural research and teaching universities, governmental agencies, and other institutions, hosts meetings and workshops and publishes reports about agricultural biotechnology. NABC seeks to “facilitate active communication among researchers, administrators, policymakers, practitioners, and other concerned people to ensure that all viewpoints contribute to the safe and efficacious development of biotechnology for the benefit of society” and to “define issues and public policy options related to biotechnology in the food, agricultural, and environmental areas.” NABC also hosts a congressional briefing annually to share recommendations from NABC’s annual meeting.

The Office of Biotechnology at Iowa State University primarily focuses on K-12 and general public outreach on resource GE and ethics, as described in Sections C and G, but they also host or support conferences, symposia, and public forums “to discuss current issues in biotechnology research, including federal rules for development, testing, and commercialization of genetically modified organisms.”

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, University of Richmond “produces reports and sponsors workshops and conferences to showcase the diverse points of view that recognized experts have on the broad array of topics relevant to the debate about agricultural biotechnology.” They are targeting policymakers, the media, and the public. They also conduct and publish results from annual surveys of U.S. consumer attitudes about GE technology in agriculture.

Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS), University of Wisconsin-Madison. This program, established by the Wisconsin State Legislature in 1990, is charged with researching the implications of technologies such as GE for farms, communities, and the environment, and analyzing how the costs and benefits can be “better balanced,” with input from Wisconsin farmers and farm industry groups. PATS is housed in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences with links to Cooperative Extension Services.

The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), based at University of California at Davis, is a new collaborative of 20 universities and philanthropic groups that seeks to “overcome the legal barriers that slow development of biotech crops,” particularly crops that might benefit developing countries. PIPRA will also be cataloguing publicly owned biotechnology tools for use by university researchers, as well as privately owned inventions for possible use by private companies.

7

Purdue Agriculture Backgrounders and Self-Study Course is a web site offers links to articles providing background information on GE topics. It also offers an online, self-study course.

Science, Technology, and Innovation (subprogram of Biotechnology and Globalization) of Harvard University. “This subprogram examines the role of agricultural biotechnology in the global economy, with specific emphasis on developing countries. The overall aim of the Biotechnology and Globalization subprogram is to undertake research, promote policy consultations and disseminate information on the implications of biotechnology for development. It also contributes to training in science and technology policy analysis. More specifically, the project: (1) undertakes research on key areas of relevance to developing countries; (2) promotes consultations on the policy aspects of biotechnology in developing countries; and (3) disseminates the results of the research and consultations widely through the internet and other means. The Biotechnology and Globalization project covers ten projects: (1) globalization of research and development; (2) science and the precautionary principle; (3) biotechnology in developing countries; (4) public attitudes toward biotechnology; (5) intellectual property rights; (6) biodiversity and traditional knowledge; (7) ethical considerations; (8) institutional innovation; (9) genetic divide; and (10) aquaculture.”

UCBiotech, University of California at Berkeley “provides science-based information to the public on issues relating to the application of biotechnology to crops. For the scientific community, educational tools and an extensive database of pertinent scientific literature are available to promote participation in the dialogue.” The web site’s searchable database offers almost 1000 scientific publications with summaries or abstracts. Copies of presentations (video, PowerPoint®, written text) relating to natural resources GE. The web site also offers a list of commonly raised questions and responses associated with agricultural and animal GE. Scientific references are provided.

Union of Concerned Scientists is an “independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.” UCS advocates at all levels of government. They seek to help the public understand risk/benefit analyses of GE technology. “We believe that the federal government must strengthen the regulatory system governing genetically engineered microorganisms, plants, and animals, so that the risks and benefits can be evaluated carefully, case by case, before they come to market.”

8

Table 1. Contact information of comparable programs that communicate science to policymakers, regulators, business leaders, farmersProgram Name Web Staff, Email

Agricultural Biotechnology/Kansas State University Extension

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/biotech/ None provided

AgBioWorld Foundation http://www.agbioworld.org Professor C.S. Prakash prakash@tuskegee.edu

Ag Tech Support Project II/Cornell http://www.absp2.cornell.edu/ Ronnie Coffmanwrc2@cornell.edu

Bio-Scope http://www.bio-scope.org/ Oliver Rautenberginfo@bio-scope.org

Biotechnology: Food and Agriculture/Penn State University

http://biotech.cas.psu.edu/default.htm Shirley Gryczuksmg1@psu.edu

Biotechnology Industry Organization http://www.bio.org/foodag/ Carl B. Feldbaum cfeldbaum@bio.org

Biotechnology Questions and Answers/UC Davis http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/index.html None provided

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology http://www.cast-science.org/cast/src/cast_top.htm Dr. Teresa A. Grubertgruber@cast-science.org,

Council for Biotechnology Information/Monsanto http://www.whybiotech.com Linda Thranehttp://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=1655

European Federation of Biotechnology http://www.efbweb.org/index.htm Sylvia Oreifiginfo@efbweb.org

Genetically Engineered Organisms-Public Issues Education Project/Cornell

http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/ Dr. Jennifer Wilkinsjlw15@cornell.edu

GMO Guidelines Project http://www.gmo-guidelines.info/public/information/index.html Evelyn Underwoodunderwood@geobot.umnw.ethz.ch

Information Systems for Biotechnology/Virginia Tech

http://www.isb.vt.edu/ Doug Kingisb@vt.edu

Institute of Forest Biotechnology http://www.forestbiotech.org/ Susan McCordsusan_mccord@ncbiotech.org

9

Table 1, ContinuedProgram Name Web Staff, Email

National Agricultural Biotechnology Council http://www.cals.cornell.edu/extension/nabc/ Ralph W.F. Hardynabc@cornell.edu

Office of Biotechnology/Iowa State University http://www.biotech.iastate.edu biotech@iastate.edu

Pew Initiative/University of Richmond http://pewagbiotech.org/about/ Michael Rodemeyerinquiries@pewagbiotech.org

Program on Agricultural Technology Studies http://www.pats.wisc.edu Nancy Carlislencarlis@wisc.edu

PIPRA/UC Davis http://www.pipra.org/ Dr. Alan Bennettalan.bennett@ucop.edu

Purdue Agriculture Backgrounders http://www2.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/backgrounders/bckgrd.asp?bgtopicID=5

Beth Forbesforbes@purdue.edu

Science, Technology, and Innovation/Harvard http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtech/ Beatriz de Castro FialhoBeatriz_Fialho@ksg.harvard.edu

UCBiotech/UC Berkeley http://www.Ucbiotech.org Dr. Peggy G. Lemaux lemauxpg@nature.berkeley.edu

Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org Margaret Mellon

10

C. Natural Resource GE: Ethics, Economics, LawMany of the programs described in Section B discuss and analyze ethical considerations of natural resource GE, but it is not the major focus of their outreach. We did locate a consortium with a major focus on ethics of resource GE. The Consortium to Address Social, Economic, and Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology, with partners from nine land-grant institutions in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, aims “1) to develop collaborative arrangements involving nine land-grant institutions…and various stakeholders (producers, agri-industry, government, consumer groups, environmental groups, and public interest groups)…to address social, economic, and ethical concerns and issues related to agricultural biotechnology; 2) to conduct social, cultural, and economic research focusing on concerns and issues in agricultural biotechnology, including ethical concerns; and 3) to integrate research with extension and education activities in promoting discussion and understanding of agricultural biotechnology and related issues.” (http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/publications/IFAFS/default.html). In addition, Iowa State University’s Biotechnology Outreach Education Center has a full time staff person devoted to statewide outreach in GE ethics, and their web site indicates this is the first person nationally in such a position. Their primary focus, however, is outreach to K-12 and general public audiences.

There are individual faculty nationwide who are specializing in natural resource biotechnology ethics, with some listed below. In addition there are centers addressing environmental or animal ethics (broadly). There also are a number of centers and programs focusing on ethical issues in health care and the life sciences. Some of these, such as The Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, might serve as a possible model for ORB should ORB choose to focus on ethical issues. While a search for outreach programs with a major focus on resource biotechnology ethics was carried out, a thorough review of the literature was not conducted. Listed below are a few national experts who might be good resources or partners on projects, and abstracts of two NSF-funded projects that focus on resource biotechnology ethics. A literature review would lead to additional experts.

Oregon Programs and Experts Candace Croney, of OSU Animal Sciences, teaches Ethical Issues in Animal Agriculture, a course required for Animal Sciences majors. According to Dr. Croney, “The OSU Animal Sciences Department has been a national leader in finding ways to provide students with ethical perspectives on animal agriculture” (OSU News, 1/9/04). Candace Croney’s web site on animal ethics is located at: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/animal-sciences/anethics/index.htm.

In the late 1990s OSU’s Philosophy Department led the Program for Ethics, Science, and the Environment, which supported “multidisciplinary education and scholarship to assist the University and its community in recognizing, understanding, and resolving value conflicts raised by scientific inquiry, biotechnology, and natural resource use” (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/philosophy/pese/pese.html). While this program is now inactive, ORB may contact its former Director and current Philosophy Department Head Courtney Campbell regarding possible collaboration in the future. Dr. Campbell indicated his department is undergoing a strategic planning process and thus the future of this Program is not determined.

11

David Ervin of Portland State University’s Environmental Studies is interested in natural resources economics, agricultural biotechnology policy, and business environmental sustainability.

Lisa Weasel of Portland State University has a NSF CAREER grant focusing on resource GE ethics; see the abstract below for more information.

National Experts in Resource Ethics Gary Comstock, Iowa State University

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, members of the working party

Leland Shapiro, L.A. Pierce College

Jerry Tannenbaum, University of California, Davis

Paul B. Thompson, Michigan State University

Gary Varner, Texas A&M University

Economist with Expertise in BiotechnologyRobert Evenson, Yale University

See also authors of articles at http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/publications/IFAFS/SpecialReports-Economics.html

Law Professor with Expertise in BiotechnologyGary Marchant, Arizona State University

Selected Resources, Workshops Focusing on Ethics and Legal ConsiderationsCenter for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology, Arizona State University. “Since its founding, the Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology has sought to contribute to the legal system’s response to the pervasive and increasing challenges posed by new scientific discoveries and their technological applications. Largely lay decision makers—judges, juries, legislators, and public administrators—must often resolve important technical disputes, or establish new policies grounded on complex, often contested, scientific matters, relatively quickly and on the basis of imperfect information. The Center seeks to improve the quality of law and public policy affecting science and technology and supports work in an important reciprocal vein: the scientific study and understanding of law, legal institutions and legal process. The Center encourages interdisciplinary research; promotes development and review of the College of Law curriculum; and provides service for law students, attorneys and others.” http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=8294

The European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EurSafe) “aims to encourage: a) academic education and research on the ethical issues involved in agriculture and food supply; [and] b) international debate on the ethical issues involved in agriculture and food supply.” http://www.eursafe.org/

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology “hosted a policy dialogue to engage thought leaders on the ethical and regulatory issues raised by the introduction of genetically modified (GM) animals. The dialogue looked at some of the more compelling ethical arguments for and against GM animals (including patients rights and animal welfare concerns), what is known

12

about consumer opinion on these ‘next generation’ products of agricultural biotechnology as well as the role of regulation. Particular attention was paid to the ability of the regulatory system to simultaneously guide producers and advance innovation, while safeguarding the food supply and the environment.” http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0630/

Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics and Governance in Global Markets. This workshop was hosted by UC Irvine in November 2004. “This workshop will investigate how new legal, social, cultural and institutional mechanisms are regulating the global emergence of biotechnologies. ‘Lively Capital’ refers to the ways in which the life sciences are literally incorporated into market regimes, as well as to the lively affects—the emotions and desires—at play when technologies and research impinge upon experiences of embodiment, kinship, identity, disability or citizenship.” http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~livelycapital/

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. In 1999 this group published a report, “Genetically modified crops: ethical and social issues,” that makes recommendations about the regulatory framework for GM crops, the potential of GM crops for developing countries, and methods of addressing public concerns (http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/gmcrops/introduction). A follow-up report, “The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries,” is available at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/gmcrops/publication_313.html.

The Consortium to Address Social, Economic, and Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology, described above, has links to several articles addressing resource GE ethics. http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/IFAFS/SpecialReports-Ethics.html and http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/biotech/ethics.html

The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), based at University of California at Davis and described in Section B, plans to address legal barriers to GE crop development.

Iowa Grain Quality Initiative has a Frequently Asked Questions page that raises legal issues and concerns of farmers. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/grain/gmo/gmo.html.

Links to centers and research groups that are interested in agricultural ethics, animal ethics, and environmental ethics (broadly) are available at: http://www.kuleuven.ac.be/cabme/page.php?LAN=E&FILE=links#7.

13

Abstracts of NSF-Funded Ethics ProjectsCAREER: The Global Helix: International Perspectives on Ethics, Values and Equity Issues in Biotechnology

NSF Org SES Division of Social and Economic Sciences

Award Number 0093827

Award Instrument Continuing grant

Start Date September 1, 2001

Expires August 31, 2006 (Estimated)

Awarded Amount to Date $249,999

Investigator(s) Lisa Weasel lisaw@pdx.edu (Principal Investigator)

Sponsor Portland State University P O BOX 751 Portland, OR 97207 503/725-3423

NSF Program(s) ETHICS AND VALUES STUDIES,PLANT GENOME RESEARCH PROJECT

Abstract

In recent years, countries on every continent have embraced [agricultural] biotechnology and incorporated it into national priorities, policies and planning. The goal of this Career Development project is to develop integrated models of research, teaching and pre-college outreach initiatives addressing issues of ethics, values and equity relating to biotechnology in a worldwide context. Specifically, the research component of this project will identify and compare key ethics, values and equity issues relating to biotechnology in a number of developed and developing countries (India, South Africa, Switzerland and the United States) using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies to identify the ethics, values and equity issues influencing the promotion of or resistance to biotechnology around the world. The education component of this project involves high school teachers in a cross-cultural science education exchange, both to participate in data collection and to share strategies relating to biotechnology education. Findings from the research will be presented at national and international meetings and submitted to journals in a variety of science and social science fields. Informed by results from the cross-cultural research, curricula at the graduate and undergraduate and pre-college levels will be developed. Findings will also be made available to representatives in the host countries, and cooperative arrangements for curricular exchanges developed. (from http://www.nsf.gov)

“This research compares the standpoints of different stakeholders in the debates over agricultural biotechnology in Europe, Asia, Africa and the United States, and how these are tied to food security and sustainability outlooks globally and locally. I use ethnographic field methodologies informed by feminist perspectives in conducting this research.” The project includes professional development for high school science teachers. http://www.bio.pdx.edu/faculty/weasel/research.html

14

The Structure of the Ethical Controversies about Transgenic Crops

NSF Org SES Division of Social and Economic Sciences Latest Amendment Date September 2, 2003

Award Number 0322805 Start Date January 1, 2004

Expires December 31, 2004 (Estimated) Awarded Amount to Date $69,743

Investigator(s) Hugh Lacey hlacey1@swarthmore.edu (Principal Investigator)

Sponsor Swarthmore College 500 College Avenue Swarthmore, PA 19081 610/328-8000

NSF Program(s) ETHICS AND VALUES STUDIES Abstract

The development of transgenic crops and marketing of their products raises important ethical and social questions, which have evoked a wide spectrum of responses. Fundamentally opposed values and ways of life are at stake here, and they have profound implications for agricultural and food security policies. Also at stake are matters that are broadly open to scientific investigation, e.g., about the risks of using transgenics and the productive potential of alternative forms of agriculture. There is dispute, however, about the appropriate methodological approaches to adopt in scientific research in order to address such matters. It derives (in part) from the complex ways in which ethical and empirical issues are intertwined, and it underlies not only the apparently intractable controversies that have arisen about transgenics, but also questions about whether public policy has been well informed by the full range of socially and scientifically relevant issues. The principal goal of the present project is to complete the research for a scholarly book and develop some materials and presentations for a broader audience, with two principal interrelated objectives: 1) To consolidate the philosophical view that methodological strategies may be adopted in scientific inquiry in part because they link with particular values, but in a way that does not discredit the soundness of the scientific results. Thus, because of their differing value implications, where there are alternate sound strategies, it is important for research to be conducted under more than one strategy. 2) To display the structure of ethical controversies about transgenics and competing forms of agriculture such as agroecology. This will involve identifying key assumptions that are in contention about values, scientific judgments and philosophy of science. Once alternate methodological strategies and their ethical implications have been identified, scientists, policymakers, and citizens can consider the approaches to scientific inquiry that may best inform food-related policies, especially in developing countries, and how to make decisions pertaining to these questions in democratic societies. Special attention will be paid to the controversies insofar as they bear upon food security and agricultural policies in the “developing” world, and recent Brazilian contributions to the discussion will be drawn upon extensively. Results will be included in undergraduate curricula in the United States and Brazil.

15

D. Outreach for the General Public

NationalORB may wish to consider partnering with informal science educators on projects that reach large numbers of the general public nationally through 1) an exhibit developed in collaboration with the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) in Portland for display in science museums or other locations nationwide, 2) radio or television programming, 3) community or after-school programming and materials, and/or 4) web-based materials. If ORB seeks to reach the general public, it is suggested staff contact the appropriate National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer to seek feedback on ideas. David Heil & Associates of Portland is a possible partner on any informal science education project.

NSF is the major federal funder of informal science education projects making national impact. Several NSF-funded Informal Science Education projects have addressed human genetics topics yet projects addressing natural resources biotechnology have been rare. An online exhibit, Jumping Genes, focused on transposons associated with the rice genome and how they might be used in GE. The DNA Files was a radio series “designed to further public understanding of genetic science as well as the ethical, legal and social issues emanating from genetics and biotechnology.” Radio programs addressed human health and natural resources biotechnology topics. Fred Friendly Seminars produced a “prime time television series about the ethical, legal, and social implications of advances in genetics research and technology.” In addition to NSF-funded projects, Walt Disney World’s Epcot Center featured an exhibit on biotechnology during 1999-2001. Abstracts of NSF-funded informal science education projects are available upon request (and on NSF’s web site).

Within OregonORB may seek to reach the general public in Oregon by offering materials and continuing education to OSU Extension for use with the Oregon public, giving public talks and hosting workshops, or assisting the Oregon Museum for Science and Industry with museum exhibit development.

The nonprofit group GeneForum is a possible partner, particularly for reaching Portland audiences. Geneforum “promotes dialogue about genetic science and its impact on our lives…We pursue sound and just genetic policy based on frank and open discussion from all perspectives. Working with leaders in genetic science education, social ethics, and cognitive psychology, Geneforum creates active learning environments that use discussion as a primary tool for exploring values. Activities include classroom workshops, town hall meetings, public opinion research, publications, an interactive website, and talk-radio.” Geneforum primarily focuses on biotechnology issues relating to humans, although they do address some issues relating to natural resources biotechnology, particularly during the recent state ballot measure that would have required labeling on genetically engineered crops. Perhaps they would be interested in collaborations to provide the public with information on natural resources biotechnology through their web site or programming in Portland.

Oregon Garden is another venue for outreach to the general public, possibly in partnership with the new Sustainable Plant Research and Outreach Center (SPROUT). “SPROUT’s mission is to develop the use of plants and plant material for environmental sustainability purposes, through

16

the development of new techniques, new plants, and new propagation methods…SPROUT will sponsor on-site research in this emerging field, engaging in partnerships with practitioners and researchers, and providing matching resources for on-site research and demonstration. SPROUT will use the visibility of the Oregon Garden to provide outreach on research results, and will actively work to integrate research efforts with public policy and business development.” (http://www.oregongarden.org/SPROUT/SPROUT_Home.html). SPROUT has a Memorandum of Understanding with OSU’s Institute for Natural Resources.

Additional outreach venues for the Oregon general public include OSU Over Lunch, Science Connections, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Oregon Zoo, and Discovery Days. OSU-Cascades and OSU Extension can recommend additional venues.

17

E. Continuing EducationGiven that GE technology is rapidly being applied and entering the marketplace, there may be an increasing need for continuing education on resource GE. Business leaders, plant breeding professionals, and extension agents are among likely audiences. Extension agents and consultants advise agricultural producers on how to increase production with genetically engineered crops and animals, and how to alter farming practices given, for example, increased disease and insect resistance, tolerance of weed control, and/or slower ripening of some crops. In addition, organic farmers need assistance in addressing issues of traceability, isolation, and testing and documentation showing that organic crops are not “contaminated.” Extension faculty and extension nutrition and agricultural educators may also be asked to address the implications of biotechnology in the lives of Oregonians.

ORB plans a needs assessment to determine OSU Extension’s desire for continuing education on resource GE topics and to determine their current services and programs related to GE that are offered to farmers, the general public, and other audiences. ORB seeks to determine the best format, frequency, and duration of continuing education for extension agents and what topics should be covered. A survey could also determine what kinds of materials extension agents would like to use with their stakeholders; ORB could assist with locating materials or with developing new ones. Likewise, ORB may wish to assess the continuing education needs of business leaders, plant breeding professionals and other possible audiences. OSU’s Survey Research Center may be consulted on the design and implementation of needs assessments. In addition, Denise Lach, Co-Director of the Institute for Natural Resources, has offered to assist with survey development.

Related Programs, Research, ResourcesThe University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension SEE (Social, Ethical, Environmental Impacts) Biotechnology provides extension agents and other adult educators with information and materials for use in informing the public about the social, economic and ethical aspects of agricultural GE. Materials include “science backgrounders, news analyses and briefings, academic papers and publications, practical demonstration and learning kits, video movies, slides, handouts and evaluation materials to assist teachers of adults in preparing presentations.” Modules for presentations and posters are also provided. http://www.biotech.wisc.edu/seebiotech/about.html

The Center for Biotechnology Education and Training offers customized workshops for technical and scientific staff in industry. They also offer technical training for technical sales staff as well as workshops for administrative personnel. The web site describes examples of workshops they have offered. http://www.cbet.org/education.html

The Business and Industry Resource Center at Indian Hills Community College has an outreach program, Iowa BioDevelopment, that “is dedicated to providing biotechnology and value-added agriculture companies with affordable access to effective, customized training programs.” The web site lists workshops that they offer on a regular basis, in addition to customized training. http://www.ihcc.cc.ia.us/ihbirc/biodevelopment/index.asp

Workshops for extension educators are provided by North Dakota State University Extension Service (http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/biotech/workshops.html) and Iowa State University Office of Biotechnology (http://www.biotech.iastate.edu).

18

Fritz et al (2004) report on results from a survey of mostly extension educators attending a biotechnology workshop at Colorado State University. The respondents of the survey indicate they rely on newspapers, the web, and popular magazines for information on biotechnology (the same sources as the general public). “Despite respondents holding university scientists in high regard, they generally were not relying upon them for information about biotechnology. Consequently, potential collaborations exist between biotechnology Extension specialists and Extension educators in developing accurate, unbiased biotechnology workshops.” The paper also concluded that respondents are interested in a series of workshops “reporting findings of biotechnology research in the reduction of pesticides, benefits to the environment, control of released genes, safer food, harming the environment, added nutritional value, and risk compared to pesticides.” Fritz, S., Ward, S., Byrne, P., Harms, K., Namuth, D. (2004). Agricultural biotechnology training for extension educators. Journal of Extension 42(1). February.

Another article on extension and biotechnology, while dated, makes an interesting commentary: “Large biotechnology companies may bypass Land Grant Universities, by releasing new products without prior notification of Extension. Consequently, we may be less able to provide our clientele with information on the latest innovations. Even now, some farmers no longer rely on the county agent’s advice, but work directly with specialists, researchers, or commercial companies. For Extension to remain competitive in the ‘information marketplace,’ we must be ready to meet these and other challenges.” Hoban, T. (1989). Biotechnology: implications for extension. Journal of Extension 27(3). Fall.

Sample Materials for Continuing EducationUniversity of Wisconsin developed Biotechnology and Food as a resource available for extension staff. http://www.biotech.wisc.edu/outreach/pdfs/biotechandfood.pdf

GEO-PIE offers fact sheets for use by extension educators. http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/educators/educators.html.

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service developed a 3-page brochure, Genetically modified trees. 2000.

UCBiotech has numerous slide presentations available for download. http://ucbiotech.org/resources/.

Washington State Extension Service provides slide presentations for download. http://spokane-county.wsu.edu/smallfarms/Biotechnology1.htm  Also, a videotape is available: http://cru84.cahe.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/VT0069.html. 2001.Bio-Link has a clearinghouse of instructional materials for biotechnology education available for download. http://www.bio-link.org/resMaterial.htm.

Instructional materials developed for other audiences (undergraduate, K-12 teachers) might also be appropriate for continuing education.

19

F. Programs for Undergraduate Education

Oregon State University Academic ProgramsSeveral OSU degree programs will benefit from ORB’s expertise and resources. OSU has a number of academic programs (BS, MA, MS, MPP, PhD) that offer a focus, concentration, or option in biotechnology, genetics, ethics, and other topics related to the mission of ORB. They are listed below. In addition, students studying natural resources need to be informed about biotechnology issues; there are a number of courses at OSU that include information on biotechnology or may in the future. ORB may offer to become a resource for the faculty instructors of these courses by providing content/resources or by giving lectures to students.

Another possible link to degree programs is that graduate students in public policy and ethics might want to pursue a thesis project in collaboration with ORB. In addition, if ORB pursues a K-12 or informal science education project, then science education graduate students could be involved in researching or evaluating the project.

Table 2. OSU Academic Programs with Relevance to ORBDegree Department or Program Concentration or Option

BS Biology Biotechnology

BS Botany Plant molecular genetics and biotechnology

BS Crop and Soil Science Crop management/Ethics or conflict management

BS Crop and Soil Science Plant breeding and genetics

BS Crop and Soil Science Crop science/crop breeding, genetics, and cytogenetics

MA Philosophy Bioethics, Environmental ethics

MA Applied Ethics

MA, MS, PhD Botany and Plant Pathology Molecular and cellular biology; genetics

MA, MS, PhD Microbiology Biotechnological microbiology, Microbial genetics and molecular biology

MA, MS, PhD Zoology Genetics

MA, MS, PhD Science Education

MPP Public policy Applied public policy, environmental policy

MS Applied Biotechnology

MS, PhD Horticulture Biotechnology/molecular biology

MS, PhD Fisheries and Wildlife Fish genetics

MS, PhD Food Science and Technology Food microbiology/ biotechnology

MS, PhD Genetics

MS, PhD Molecular and Cellular Biology Biotechnology

PhD Plant physiology/genetics

20

Programs at Other UniversitiesThere are a number of programs nationwide that provide faculty development and are preparing curriculum materials and new courses for community college and high school students. These programs, primarily based at community colleges, are also developing degree programs for technicians, particularly in states with significant biotechnology industries. The National Science Foundation has 22 active Advanced Technology Education awards relating to biotechnology; abstracts are available on NSF’s web site or by request. Bio-Link hosts a clearinghouse of resource materials at http://www.bio-link.org/resMaterial.htm. Furthermore, a list of on-line undergraduate courses at other universities is available from Bio-Link: http://www.bio-link.org/online.htm. Purdue University (http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/teachers/hort590/index.html) and the University of Nebraska (http://croptechnology.unl.edu/index.shtml) are two universities offering online courses on crop biotechnology.

21

G. Precollege Programs and MaterialsIf ORB decides to impact K-12 education, there are several existing programs that might serve as partners, resources, or venues. We have provided examples of K-12 programs based at OSU that may serve as logical partners, and programs located nationally and internationally that may serve as models. Also listed below are selected instructional materials and resources related to resource biotechnology.

Selected K-12 Programs Based at Oregon State University Science Education Partnerships (SEPS). This outreach program, with grant funding from Howard Hughes Medical Institute, offers biotechnology workshops and year-long support to teachers. OSU courtesy faculty scientists Meredith Howell and Kari van Zee developed instructional materials, have led the workshops, and have provided support to teachers in implementation. Drs. Van Zee and/or Howell may be interested in additional opportunities to work with teachers and/or develop materials. (Their grant ends soon but they may apply for a renewal.) http://www.seps.org/index.htm

Rural Science Education Program. Sujaya Rao’s NSF-funded program, “Integrating Biotechnology and Ecology into Science Education in Rural Schools in Oregon” places graduate and undergraduate students in the sciences in classrooms of teachers and students in middle and high school classrooms in rural communities near Corvallis. The program provides curriculum materials in natural resources biotechnology as a major focus. (Their grant ends soon but they may have applied for a renewal.) http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/gk12/

Discovery Days is an outreach event held twice a year at OSU. It is attended by 2000 K-12 students, who engage in tabletop activities and exhibits on diverse science topics provided by OSU departments, faculty, and staff. http://science.oregonstate.edu/discoverydays/

Saturday Academy is an extracurricular, precollege science and mathematics education program based at OSU and also Portland State University. “The program enlists community professionals to share their facilities, equipment, and expertise through hands-on classes, workshops, and mentorships to extend and augment the science curriculum of the school systems.” http://oregonstate.edu/precollege/academy/

The Science and Math Investigative Learning Experiences (SMILE) Program is a partnership between Oregon State University and 14 rural Oregon school districts to provide science and mathematics enrichment for underrepresented and other educationally underserved students in grades 4-12. The SMILE Program offers professional development workshops for its 65 elementary, middle, and high school teachers, most of whom teach science in the classroom as well as leading after-school club meetings for The SMILE Program. SMILE middle and high school students visit OSU each spring and there may be opportunities for them to interact with ORB, such as through lab tours offered by ORB. http://smile.oregonstate.edu/

Science Connections is a partnership between the College of Science at OSU and Portland Public Schools. The goal of the program is to enhance science education in the public schools by forging connections between working scientists (faculty, researchers, and students at OSU) and Portland teachers and students. Science Connections offers classroom visits, lectures, email connections, and workshops. http://science.orst.edu/connections.html

22

Within the College of Forestry are outreach programs that focus on forestry and forest ecosystems. Latinos in Forestry (Salem area) and Inner City Youth Institute (Portland) offer programming to high school students (Latinos and African Americans, respectively) to encourage them to consider forestry as a career. Oregon Forestry Education Program offers one-day workshops to teachers and informal education providers on the Project Learning Tree curriculum.

A list of additional programs from throughout Oregon can be generated upon request. One in particular might be of interest: the Oregon Biotechnology Education Program (based at Portland State University) offers workshops for high school teachers.

Examples of Programs for K-12 Teachers and Students (Nationally and Internationally)Since the 1990s, NSF-funded projects have provided professional development in biotechnology for middle and high school teachers throughout the country, including workshops and institutes, research experiences at industrial sites, and experience with curriculum materials. Abstracts of these projects are available upon request and on the NSF web site. Additional teacher professional development workshops were and are being provided with state-allocated funds from the US Department of Education as well as through other NSF programs. Listed below are examples of organizations providing teacher professional development in biotechnology, with assorted funding sources.

Acadien Institute of Biotechnology. This nonprofit organization in Canada provides professional development for high school teachers and summer camps in biotechnology for high school students. They publish a magazine on biotechnology that “expresses in laymen terms the discoveries and the applications of biotechnology in sectors such as health, agri-food, natural resources and environment.” http://biotech.acadie.net/English

Biotechnology Center Outreach, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This research center has an outreach program that provides teacher professional development and a camp for middle school students. http://www.biotech.uiuc.edu/otframe.htm

Biotechnology Outreach Education Center, Iowa State University. For ten years this center has offered teacher workshops, instructional materials, and supplies to support biotechnology lab experiments in high school classrooms throughout Iowa. They have served over 1200 teachers, extension agents, and other educators. Their programming also includes workshops and newsletters on bioethics. http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/

The Center for Plant Genomics Training and Education, UC Berkeley. This center seeks to “encourage and increase participation of members of under-represented groups in plant genomics research and foster public awareness in the areas of biodiversity and applications of plant genomics research.” They host summer workshops for minority high school and college students “with the opportunity to conduct a unique question-based genomics experiment with real world applicability, and has also helped establish community gardens that serve to educate students, teachers, researchers and the public about plant genomics, Solanaceous crops, the importance of plant diversity and applications of genomics for breeding sustainable, environmentally friendly crops.” They produced research handbooks for workshop participants, established a teaching garden at Heritage College, and taught elementary students about potato genetics. This center is funded with a major NSF research grant. http://www.potatogenome.org/outreach/

23

Fralin Biotechnology Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. “[The] Center provides up-to-date biotechnology information in its quarterly newsletter and loans biotechnology education materials and equipment to Virginia high school and community college educators. The Center sponsors an annual biotechnology education conference and other Professional Development opportunities for high school and college biology educators. The Center also helps establish Teacher-Scientist Partnerships, collaborations designed to help high school students understand current advances in biology and biotechnology.” http://www.biotech.vt.edu/outreach/outreach.html

National Centre for Biotechnology Education, University of Reading (NCBE) is Europe’s leading provider of professional development in biotechnology, reaching about 4000 people per year. They offer courses for teachers in eight European countries and they host courses for scientists seeking to improve their skills in communicating with the public. NCBE also develops innovative educational resources which are translated into many languages. NCBE also participates in public outreach events such as science festivals and museum-based events. http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/

Partnership for Plant Genomics Education, UC Davis. “The Partnership for Plant Genomics Education (PPGE) is dedicated to developing an educational program dealing with plant genomics and biotechnology that is targeted towards secondary level students. Our intent is to help cultivate an informed citizenry that understands the concepts and issues involved in the burgeoning field of genomics and biotechnology. Goals of the PPGE include the creation and distribution of educational software and on-line materials, development of associated hands-on activities, equipment loan programs, teacher training, and student internships.” Funding for the PPGE program is provided by NSF and the Genentech Foundation for Biomedical Sciences. http://ceprap.ucdavis.edu/

Science and Plants for Schools, a charitable organization in Great Britain, develops teaching resources and educational protocols and kits, and offers teacher workshops and courses. http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/index.htm

University of Wisconsin’s Biotechnology Outreach Program for the Public, operated jointly by the UW Biotechnology Center and UW-Extension, provides workshops and tours for Extension county faculty, teachers, reporters, members of the biotechnology community and others. They develop, test and deliver new programs, materials and services. Their programming features food biotechnology. They have developed materials such as DNA as Videotape , Biotechnology: Tools for Genetic Ingenuity , Biotechnology & Food: Leader and Participant Guide, Biotechnology & Food: A Public Issue for Extension Outreach, Options in Life, and ImProv Electrophoresis . This outreach program was established because the 1990 Bovine Growth Hormone Moratorium mandated that the University of Wisconsin establish a public outreach program in biotechnology. http://www.biotech.wisc.edu/education/

A number of Washington state K-12 outreach programs in biotechnology are described at http://genetics-education-partnership.mbt.washington.edu/guide/programs.html.

K-12 Instructional Materials, Educational Resources and Searchable Resource DatabasesUniversity of Washington’s Genetic Education Partnership reviewed available K-12 genetics curricula in 2000. Their reviews can be found at http://genetics-education-partnership.mbt.washington.edu/guide/guide.html. This group concluded there is a need for more

24

instructional materials in genetics, especially at the elementary and middle school levels. “At the elementary level these could be materials to supplement inquiry-based science kits already in use. At the high school level, there is a need for identification and development of resources and activities suitable for all students, not just those in advanced courses.” Most of the available genetics materials relate to human genetics, not agriculture.

University of Nebraska AgBiosafety Education Center seeks to “provide quality learning materials for educators wishing to teach the science of crop biotechnology and the debate surrounding the safety of genetically modified food crops in the classroom. The Education Center contains lesson plans listed by classroom activity type.” http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/education.shtml

The University of Nebraska’s Library of Crop Technology “presents unbiased, research-based information through lesson modules focused on plant genetics, GE, and biochemistry. These lessons are composed of text enhanced with images, animations, a hyper-linked glossary and quizzes. Extension educators, journalists, businesses, college professors and high school teachers from around the world have used these lessons.” http://croptechnology.unl.edu/index.shtml

Iowa State University Biotechnology Outreach Education Center has a number of curriculum resources. One example is Bacillus thuringiensis : Sharing Its Natural Talent With Crops , a four-module curriculum for use with high school or adult audiences. http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/Educational_resources.html

They also have materials relating to ethics of GE resources, including case studies for use in the classroom. http://www.bioethics.iastate.edu/classroom/case_studies.html.

Colorado State University faculty have produced online instructional materials on GE crops for a general audience. Authors of Transgenic Crops: An introduction and resource guide attempt to provide balanced information and links to other resources on the technology and issues surrounding GE crops. http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/.

The University of Kansas Medical Center’s Genetics Education Center provides a comprehensive list of programs and resources, with primary focus on human genetics but some links to resources relating to GE natural resources. http://www.kumc.edu/gec/

Bio-Link has a clearinghouse of instructional materials. http://www.bio-link.org/resMaterial.htm.

National 4-H Council, Monsanto The Agricultural Group, and Pioneer hi-Bred International developed Field of Genes, Making Sense of Biotechnology in Agriculture, a curriculum intended for use with youth ages 5-18. It has age-appropriate activities included in each chapter. The curriculum was developed by. Representatives from industry, education, and environmental issues reviewed the curriculum prior to publication.

The University of Utah’s Genetic Science Learning Center offers online activities that provide basic information on genetics, an online flash demonstration of gel electrophoresis, and at-home activities on DNA extractions. http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu.

American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture offers a 20-minute video “Bringing Biotechnology to Life” designed for students in grades 7-12. The video provides a

25

comprehensive overview to introduce the topic of biotechnology, including uses in medicine, fuel production, nutrition, and feeding a hungry planet http://www.ageducate.org/resources/.

Bay Area Biotechnology Education Consortium offers downloadable lab guides for PCR amplification experiments, including background information, the experimental procedure, and a list of questions to follow each experiment.

Biotechnology Institute has links to downloadable slideshows on GE crops. http://www.biotechinstitute.org/tresources.html.

International Food Information Council offers a speaker’s manual, Food Biotechnology: A Communications Guide to Improving Understanding. It includes “a PowerPoint® presentation on CD; speaker tools, including discussion guide, reproducible handouts, and a pre/post knowledge assessment quiz; summary of key food biotechnology issues; history of food improvements and developments; ‘Myths and Facts’; ‘What the Experts Say’; Language of Food Biotechnology; and a list of domestic and international resources and contacts.” http://ific.org/publications/other/biotechcommguide.cfm

Biotech-Adventure of Oklahoma State University is an engaging, entertaining web site with information about biotechnology. Educational illustrations and animations can be downloaded for use in the classroom. http://biotech-adventure.okstate.edu/low/

Science Controversies On-line: Partnerships in Education (SCOPE), a NSF-funded project led by UC Berkeley, University of Washington, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, consists of web-based forums that allow discussion of science controversies. The debate on GM food is one of the forums available. http://scope.educ.washington.edu/

University of Nebraska- Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources , Library of Crop Technology Lesson Modules has Self Study/Lesson Plan Modules on crop GE (DNA extraction, cloning, design, transformation, breeding) and nutrition technology. Teacher Resources include lesson plans on food safety, transgenic drift, ethics, and the Monarch butterfly. http://croptechnology.unl.edu/

The DNA Learning Center of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has developed a curriculum for advanced high school classes and undergraduate courses. The focus is on plant molecular biology, genomics, and bioinformatics. http://www.greenomes.org and http://www.dnalc.org.

Hello Dolly: A Webquest. Hello Dolly is an inquiry oriented activity that places students in the position to ask great questions, develop new relationships, and take a stand on a current hot issue. http://www.powayschools.com/projects/dolly/toolbox.htm

DNA for Dinner? is a high school webquest in which students take on the role of Congressmen with the task of drafting a law addressing labeling of genetic foods.

The University of Maryland AgNIC is a selective guide to quality agricultural biotechnology information on the Internet. The web site provides detailed agricultural biotechnology information on various topics, including animals, economics, ethics, breeding and genetic improvement, entomology, food, law, crops, forestry, and environmental studies. http://agnic.umd.edu/

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology offers lesson plans, lab experiments, classroom demonstrations, background Information, and slide presentations

26

(Most of the above resources were found at The International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation, http://ific.org/publications/other/biotechedres.cfm?renderforprint=1)

The National Science Resources Center published Resources for Teaching Middle School Science in 1998. Of the 400 curriculum materials described in this book, five address GE.

27

H. Structure of ProgramProfessor Steve Strauss will serve as ORB’s Director, providing leadership for the program. He will also present on national panels and author publications for national audiences. Research Associate Kirstin Carroll will work full time for ORB. An ORB Advisory Board will meet annually to review ORB activities and to recommend priorities and new partnerships. ORB’s Board will consist of experts based at OSU or within Oregon. Expertise of board members should include biotechnology of agricultural crops, biotechnology of animals, ethics in natural resources biotechnology, extension in agriculture, policy, business (plant breeding, grass seed), economics, informal science education and/or K-12 science education. Additional faculty and other experts may be affiliated with ORB. Graduate students and undergraduates who are affiliated with Steve Strauss’ research program may assist with ORB activities at the discretion of ORB’s Director. It is anticipated that ORB will grow to include additional staff. Descriptions of structurally similar, university-based programs, which might be helpful in considering ORB’s structure and future growth, are described below.

OSU National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). The Center, in operation since 1995, is a service providing pesticide and pesticide-related information to the general public and professionals across the United States. NPIC has an executive committee with three Directors and one Project Coordinator. The executive committee directors include the Director of the Center, Terry Miller, who is also the Principal Investigator, as well as two co-Principal Investigators. There is no external or advisory board. The staff of the center includes the Project Coordinator, about 12 Pesticide Specialists at the rank of Faculty Research Assistants, an Information Resource Supervisor, a Budget/Personnel Assistant, and graduate and undergraduate students. The Center is part of the Extension Service, within the College of Agricultural Sciences, within the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. It is housed on campus in Weniger Hall. Funding for NPIC is provided principally through a Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Pesticide Programs), “with substantial support provided by Oregon State University in the form of cost sharing, salary support, and facilities.” The Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology provides the cost share. NPIC does not seek additional grant funding besides this one major Cooperative Agreement.

In providing outreach, the Center responds to people and organizations who contact them, typically by phone, e-mail, or web. They receive about 24,000 inquiries per year. Pesticide Specialists answer questions about pesticides and provide brochures and other publications. They also respond to reporting of incidents. Their outreach is to various audiences: environmental organizations, governmental agencies, K-12 students and parents, physicians, public health experts, and the general public. They make a special effort to reach tribal and underserved populations of the general public. Pesticide Specialists are available to answer the phone 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Center also does proactive outreach through conferences and events, mailings, publications and editorials.

Oregon Climate Service. The Oregon Climate Service (OCS) is affiliated with OSU’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS). The staff includes the State Climatologist, GIS Manager, a Research Professor, two Research Assistants, a Publications Assistant, and student assistants. The Oregon Climate Service does not have a board of directors, rather they report to the Dean of COAS. The Oregon Climate Service is the state repository for weather and climate

28

information; it also seeks “to educate the people of Oregon on current and emerging climate issues…OCS handles about 6,000 telephone or mail data requests per year. OCS provides a full range of climate-related services to both the public and private sectors. Services/products include, but are not restricted to: site-specific climate reports/summaries; various statistical analyses, such as means, extremes, probabilities, percentiles, threshold exceedances, etc.; climate tables/inventories; precipitation maps; customized research; current climate data and information.” Most of their funding comes from grants (federal, state, private); they also receive some state funding from a line item in the higher education budget.

OHSU Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology (CROET). CROET was formed with a House Bill that provided base funding from the State of Oregon Workers’ Compensation Division. CROET also receives major research grants from federal agencies. The Center was charged with carrying out “basic and applied research that would ultimately reduce costs and dangers of occupational disease…Our mission is to promote health, and prevent disease and disability among working Oregonians and their families during their employment years and through retirement. We do so through basic and applied research , outreach and education .” CROET has an advisory board, five directors, 10 supporting administrative staff, 100 scientists, and possibly additional research and education staff and students. http://www.ohsu.edu/croet/about/history.html

In the future, ORB could become part of the Institute for Natural Resources (INR) or the Extension Service. In preliminary meetings with INR, Co-Director Denise Lach offered to approach INR’s Board regarding inclusion of biotechnology as one of INR’s priorities. The relationship between ORB and INR is yet to be determined and will evolve. The same is true for the Extension Service. The planned assessment of the Extension Service’s needs related to resource biotechnology may be helpful in determining the nature of ORB’s relationship with Extension. Extension Service’s own strategic planning process may also impact the nature of the future relationship.

29

I. Funding of ProgramOperating expenses for core program—ORB has secured funding from the Colleges of Forestry and Agriculture to cover two years of salary for its Research Associate and other operating expenses. The long-term financing plan for the program is in development. ORB may seek long-term State of Oregon funding from the Extension Service, the Colleges of Forestry and Agriculture, or through a House Bill. It also plans to seek grant funding from foundations and/or federal agencies. Several foundations listed below have provided major funding for similar types of outreach programs nationwide. For services targeting policymakers, regulators, and farmers, ORB could secure funding as the “broader impacts” partner to scientists submitting research proposals to NSF or other federal agencies that support resource biotechnology research. Murdock Charitable Trust and Meyer Memorial Trust are Oregon-based foundations offering large grants (but note that clearance from OSU Research Office and/or OSU Foundation is required to approach these foundations).

K-16 and informal education projects—If ORB wishes to partner on projects offering K-16 professional development or curriculum development, then they may seek grant funds from the National Science Foundation (Teacher Professional Continuum; Instructional Materials Development; Undergraduate Education Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement; Advanced Technology Education), the US Department of Education (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education and others), the Oregon Department of Education (Math/Science Partnership Program), or the Oregon University System (No Child Left Behind Program). The US Department of Agriculture may be another source of funding for high school professional development and classroom materials. NSF also offers funding for informal science education projects that target the general public.

Ethics projects—ORB could consider a submission to NSF’s Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science, and Technology Program, with areas focusing on Ethics and Values Studies as well as Research on Science and Technology.

Guiding principle—ORB plans to accept funding only from organizations or institutions that do not lead to a conflict of interest. Therefore it will not accept funding from corporations or private foundations that have a clear bias.

30

Table 3. Examples of Funded Grants Projects Nationally

Funder Recipient Program/Project Title

Genentech Foundation UC Davis Partnership for Plant Genomics Education

McKnight Foundation of Minneapolis Rockefeller Foundation

UC Davis PIPRA

National Science Foundation, CAREER

Portland State University

(See Section C for abstract.)

The Global Helix: International Perspectives on Ethics, Values and Equity Issues in Biotechnology

National Science Foundation, Directorate of Education & Human Resources

Many Titles and abstracts available upon request

Pew Charitable Trusts University of Richmond The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

Rockefeller Foundation Harvard University Biotechnology and Globalization

Smith-Lever Fund (federal funding) for extension programs

Cornell University GEO-PIE

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Cornell University Agricultural Technology Support Project II

USAID Michigan State University Agricultural Technology Support Project I (expired)

USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems

Colorado State University Transgenic Crops: An introduction and resource guide

USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Virginia Tech Information Systems for Biotechnology

USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Iowa State University Biotechnology Outreach Education Center

USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems

Iowa State University Consortium to Address Social, Economic, and EthicalAspects of Biotechnology

Projects Involving OSU

Funder Recipient Program

Howard Hughes Medical Institute Oregon State University Science Education PartnershipS,Science Connections,The SMILE Program,Discovery Days

National Science Foundation, Toshiba America Foundation

Oregon State University Rural Science Education Program

31