Suchergebnisse

AbstractJonathan Kydd's analysis of the history of maize research in Malawi argues successfully that the reasons for the low rate of adoption of high yielding maize varieties lie in an insufficient appreciation of local processing and storage requirements. The analysis, however, raises further questions. In particular, Kydd's conclusion that maize research by multinational seed corporations might be more effective than public sector research is not supported by adequate evidence. The existing evidence suggests that though these corporations are likely to play an increasing role in developing counties, they are unlikely to direct their efforts to the needs of the poor.

AbstractNew releases, updated adoption data and estimated rates of economic return provide evidence that Malawi's maize research story can now be characterized as an emerging success. Malawi's programme has always included the concern for grain texture among breeding objectives. The active research time until the release by the national programme of hybrids that are adapted to small farmer needs is moderate. The lack of suitable germplasm and discontinuities of staff and funds contributed to lengthy calendar time. Sustained success depends on national commitment to smallholder development and continued investments in maize research and supporting seed production and input distribution systems.

Enthält außerdem: Kydd, Jonathan: The role of the private sector in African agricultural research: A reply to Heisey, S. 254-256

AbstractFollowing the failure of legislative proposals for a multi‐sector greenhouse gas (GHG) cap‐and‐trade policy, the shift in focus to energy sector policies ignores the perhaps substantial potential for GHG mitigation from agriculture/forestry. We review estimates of the current U.S. agriculture sector contribution to GHG mitigation from a portfolio of existing sector policies in bioenergy, conservation, and research and development to compare accomplishments across programs. We then consider what opportunities and challenges may exist for increasing sector GHG mitigation by retargeting and/or expanding current programs—or for bioenergy‐related mitigation, implementing proposed new programs—to serve as an alternative to cap‐and‐trade.

Over the past 20 years, patenting in agricultural biotechnology has grown even faster than the rapid increase in US utility patents. Private firms, universities, and the federal government all increased patenting in agricultural biotechnology. Universities have increased patenting in agricultural biotechnology particularly rapidly, and they now hold a greater proportion of agricultural biotechnology patents than they do of patents in general. Private firms tend to dominate patenting in plant technologies and molecular level agricultural biotechnology. Differences in patterns of patent production suggest not only differences in agricultural biotechnology research investment but also differences in motivations for patenting. ; Includes bibliographical references

"This report examines the use of intellectual property rights in Federal technology transfer, focusing primarily on the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ARS uses patenting and licensing when a technology requires additional development by a private sector partner to yield a marketable product. Licensing revenue is not a major motivation. Greater use of patenting and licensing by ARS has not reduced the use of traditional instruments of technology transfer such as scientific publication. The structure of licensing agreements affects technology transfer outcomes. Mutually advantageous revisions to license terms may at times maintain the incentives through which private companies distribute the benefits of public research." ---Taken from website. ; ERR15 ; Cover title. ; Bibliography on pg. ?. ; "This report examines the use of intellectual property rights in Federal technology transfer, focusing primarily on the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ARS uses patenting and licensing when a technology requires additional development by a private sector partner to yield a marketable product. Licensing revenue is not a major motivation. Greater use of patenting and licensing by ARS has not reduced the use of traditional instruments of technology transfer such as scientific publication. The structure of licensing agreements affects technology transfer outcomes. Mutually advantageous revisions to license terms may at times maintain the incentives through which private companies distribute the benefits of public research." ---Taken from website. ; Mode of access: Internet.