Public germplasm collections and revolutions in biotechnology.

State funding of anything to do with the ‘public good’ has been accepted as something natural in many cultures. However, in free enterprise countries that are at the forefront of modern science, publicly funded activities are widely regarded as legitimate only if they are essential and not addressed by the market place. For-profit companies understandably focus on activities where the relationship between cost and benefit are obvious and hence invest in activities with a well-defined cost–benefit relationship. Collections of living biological materials are an example of an activity where benefits are difficult to associate with cost and therefore have to continually struggle for financial support. Because of its intrinsically speculative nature, basic scientific research is often regarded as having a poorly defined cost–benefit relationship. For-profit entities conduct applied research whose results are likely to augment their coffers, or will sponsor such research via competitive grants. Basic research is more often funded via competitive grants by government agencies, sometimes by private philanthropic foundations, or directly conducted by the very largest private corporations. In most cases of published research, direct public funding provides facilities and training (mostly at universities), while research funds for specific projects are obtained by investigators via competitive grants. Most scientists accept, and adapt to, this situation much as we accept and adapt to the weather. Boundaries between ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ are not rigid or immutable and even the lexicon is fluid. Recently applied research has been re-cast as ‘translational’, bridging the span between basic research and development of products or processes. In agriculture and botany, the line between basic and applied was probably stronger a couple decades ago: ‘Funding for basic (versus applied) research in plant science is very limited and much of what is available comes through the National Science Foundation (NSF)’ (Dilcher 1991). Currently, however, ‘The line between furthering basic understanding of natural processes and the development of potential applications is hazy and overlapping, and the time from discovery to commercialization can be exceedingly short’ (Watson et al. 2003). What persists in this changing environment is the necessity for most scientists to obtain research funds via various competitive grants programs. A major exception to this state of affairs is the maintenance and preservation of large biological collections, which have relevance to both basic and applied research, especially to biotechnology. Government and non-profit entities (the latter usually receiving government assistance) have been critical for creating and maintaining these collections of living organisms, including performing the research necessary to characterize and preserve the germplasm itself. These ‘germbanks’ are, like bank accounts, savings for both anticipated and unexpected contingencies. In plant research, they provide potential sources of resistance to emerging pests and diseases, genes for drought hardiness or useful metabolic products, as well as other desirable traits. However, these traits are often not readily apparent, and often occur in a genetic background of less desirable properties. Microbial collections are similarly valuable in providing validated material for testing new plant varieties, new anti-microbial drugs, for developing drug targets, and often provide genetic material for development of new enzymes used in every aspect of modern life. Because the value of such biological material is often in its hidden potential, truly comprehensive collections are often maintained at public expense or receive governmental subsidies. While preservation of natural environments is an important factor in preserving biological diversity, it is complementary to and not redundant with ex situ biological repositories. The fiscal health (or lack thereof) of germplasm collections has been the subject of frequent review (e.g. Strauss 1998; McCluskey 2003; Babcock et al. 2007; Gowans 2009). In the US, ‘microbial collections are at risk … because the United States lacks a coordinated national system to protect, preserve and enhance these valuable resources’ (APS 2009). In spite of their sometimes insecure budgets, these large biological collections are supremely important. Biological materials from public germplasm collections have been decisive for three of the most significant innovations in modern biotechnology. These innovations are: (i) the commercial production of antibiotics and other drugs, pioneered by penicillin production; (ii) the Green Revolution, commencing with semi-dwarf wheat varieties and (iii) modern molecular genetics, made feasible by the polymerase chain reaction.