Previous | Contents | Next | ||
Issues in Science and Technology
Librarianship |
Winter 2004 |
|||
DOI:10.5062/F4P26W2X |
URLs in this document have been updated. Links enclosed in {curly brackets} have been changed. If a replacement link was located, the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not be identified, the broken link was removed. |
Few areas of science in recent years have had such a major impact on the world as biotechnology. This has been particularly so for the agricultural use of this new technology. It is therefore critical to have accurate and accessible information in this area.
There is therefore a need to provide searchable access to the research itself, but also overviews and synthesis that helps to set the research in context, and give timely updates on the wider environment.
Agricultural biotechnology is a rapidly moving field at the interface of science and commerce that operates in a constantly changing political landscape. Major players come from all sectors including:
The wide range of organizations working in agricultural biotechnology often have differing agendas and needs. It is important to try to catalyse through relevant products and services the information flow between universities, government research networks, large and small biotechnology companies, developing country research groups and donors.
As a not-for-profit organization with an international mandate, CABI has responsibilities for trying to consolidate and disseminate core information in this important field. We have done this through the development of AgBiotechNet with the intent of it being a key information resource that bridges the needs of a wide community. Aside from the science of biotechnology itself, we've recognised the importance of covering issues such as biosafety (Morris and Koch 2002) and intellectual property rights (Mayer 2003). The resource contains key books from the Biotechnology in Agriculture Series, covering biotechnology in Africa (deVries and Toenniessen 2001) and developing countries in general, (Persley and MacIntyre 2001) EU/North American trade issues (Isaac 2002), and other issues related to GM food (Santaniello et al. 2002).
We have also developed appropriate services, such as training, that assist in this endeavour.
We have tried to use our unique skills to respond to specific needs.
I'm going to describe four of them:
The issues behind the decisions of the other African countries were explored in a recent AgBiotechNet review by Joel Cohen and Robert Paarlberg (Cohen and Paarlberg 2002), as well as in the news and abstract sections. We examined with the Ugandan specialists some of the ways of obtaining objective information on biotechnology, and distinguishing it from more partisan accounts (see {Hot Topic on Bt plants}.)
So with the example of Bt crops we worked through the best searches to pull out information on non-target effects, management of insect resistance and setting these in context with cost-benefit analysis studies. This included information from our abstract database but also our news, online book chapters and recent reviews, and took advantage of CABI Bioscience's expertise in environmental impact assessment of GM crops. The Ugandan specialists also wanted to know what issues anti-GM groups were raising, to find a way of setting these views in context. The media in Uganda are still learning about biotech, and predominantly use information from those who make their points most articulately, and currently this is often the anti-GM NGOs.
There is no shortage of information on biotechnology, but sorting out reliable information from biased material and presenting it in a coherent and accessible format takes time. Our aim with AgBiotechNet is to provide an integrated resource so that users don't have to spend time and money tracking down and vetting information. We're aware that not all of our users will be familiar with the value of bibliographic databases, and we're responding by educating users to make that value more apparent, and integrating other elements that enhance that core information component.
As the subject evolves we, like other information providers, have to respond by providing better information in more usable formats. The need for objective information in a range of formats continues to grow as researchers and policy-makers worldwide have to stay on top of the plethora of scientific, economic and political issues concerning agbiotech.
While I've illustrated the talk with emphasis on the developing world, we're very much focused on meeting the needs of developed world scientists and policy makers too. Drawing together information from around the world and providing it to those around the world who require it is the essence of our strategy for helping them stay on top of agbiotech.
Cohen, J. I.; Paarlberg, R. 2002. Explaining restricted approval and availability of GM crops in developing countries. AgBiotechNet 4, ABN 097. [Online]. Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=26} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
Commandeur, U.; Twyman R.M.; Fischer R. 2003. The biosafety of molecular farming in plants. AgBiotechNet 5, ABN 110. [Online]. Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=197} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
DeVries, J.; Toenniessen, G. 2001. Securing the Harvest: Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for African Crops. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Dicks, J. 2002. Plant bioinformatics: current status and future trends. AgBiotechNet 4, ABN 080. [Online]. Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=44} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
Fiehn, O. 2002. First International Congress on Plant Metabolomics April 7-11, Wageningen, The Netherlands. AgBiotechNet 4, ABN 094.
Isaac, G.E. 2002. Agricultural Biotechnology and Transatlantic Trade: Regulatory Barriers to GM Crops. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Mayer, J. E. 2003. Intellectual property rights and access to agbiotech by developing countries. AgBiotechNet 5, ABN 108. [Online]. Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=195} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
Morris, E. J.; Koch, M. 2002. Biosafety of genetically modified crops - an African perspective. AgBiotechNet 4, ABN 102. [Online.] Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=188} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
Oda, L. M.; Soares, B.E.C. 2001. Public acceptance: a challenge for the strengthening of biotechnology R & D in Brazil. AgBiotechNet 3, ABN 067. [Online]. Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=57} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
Persley, G.J.; MacIntyre, L.R. 2001. Agricultural Biotechnology: Country Case Studies - A Decade of Development. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Santaniello, V.; Evenson, R.E.; Zilberman, D. 2002. Market Development For Genetically Modified Foods. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Schenk, P.M.; Ebert, P.R. 2001. DNA microarrays: new tools in agricultural biotechnology. AgBiotechNet 3, ABN 077. [Online]. Available: {http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=46} [Accessed December 9, 2003].
Previous | Contents | Next |