150 • Impacts of Applied Genetics — Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals 
nut trees, flowers, and foliage crops. Some of 
the most important crops— like wheat, oats, and 
barley— have yet to be regenerated. In addition, 
cells that form calluses in culture cannot always 
be coaxed into forming embryos, which must 
precede the formation of leaves, shoots, and 
roots. Technical breakthroughs have come on a 
species-by-species basis; key technical discov- 
eries are not often applicable to all plants. And 
even when the new technologies succeed in 
transferring genetic information, the changes 
can be unstable. 
The hope that protoplast fusion would open 
extensive avenues for gene transfer between 
distantly related plant species has diminished 
with the observation of this instability. How- 
ever, if whole chromosomes or chromosome 
fragments could be transferred in plants where 
sexual hybridization is presently impossible, the 
possibilities would be enormous. 
INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS 
Institutional constraints on molecular genet- 
ics include those in funding, in regulation, in 
manpower, and in industry. 
Federal funding for plant molecular genetics 
in agriculture has come from the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) and from USDA. Re- 
search support in USDA is channeled primarily 
through the flexible Competitive Grants Pro- 
gram (fiscal year 1980 budget of $15 million) for 
the support of new research directions in plant 
biology. The panel on genetic mechanisms (an- 
nual budget less than $4 million) is of particular 
significance for developing new genetic technol- 
ogies. The panel’s charter specifically seeks pro- 
posals on novel genetic technologies. The re- 
maining three panels concerned with plants— 
nitrogen, photosynthesis, and stress— also sup- 
port projects to define the molecular basis of 
fundamental plant properties. The success of 
the USDA Competitive Grants Program is hard 
to assess after just 2 years of operation; how- 
ever, its budget over the past 2 years has severe- 
ly limited expansion of the program into new 
areas of research. 
Some private institutions'® argue that the 
•®V. Walbot, Past, Present and Future Trends in Crop Breeding, 
Vol. II, Working Papers, Impact of applied Genetics, NTIS, 1981. 
Competitive Grants Program is shifting support 
from ongoing USDA programs to new genetics 
research programs that are not aimed at the 
important problems facing agriculture today. 
There is no opposition to supporting the molec- 
ular approaches as long as they do not come at 
the expense of traditional breeding programs, 
and as long as both molecular biologists and 
classical geneticists working with major croj) 
plants are assured of enough support to foster 
research groups of sufficient size. 
At present, funds from nine programs at the 
NSF— primarily in the Directorate for Biological, 
Behavioral, and Social Sciences— support plant 
research. The total sujiport for the plant sci- 
ences may he as high as $25 million, of which 
only about $1 million is designated specifically 
for molecular genetics. 
The regulation of the release of genetically 
altered plants into the environment has not had 
much effect to date. As of Nm emluM' 1980, only 
one application (which re(|uested exception 
from the NIH Ciuidelines (see ch. 11) to releasi' 
rDNA-treated corn into the einironmenti has 
been filed with the Office of Recombinant DN,\ 
Activities (ORDA). \Vh(4h(;r regulation will pro- 
duce major obstacles is difficult to predict at 
present. It is also unclear whetlKM’ restrictions 
w'ill be placed on other geii(4ic acli\ itii's, such 
as protoplast fusion. Gurrently, at least one 
other nation (New Zealand) includes such re- 
strictions in its guidelines. It is not clear how 
much the uncertainty of possible ecological dis- 
ruption and the attiMidiMil liability coiucrns 
from intentional release of genetically engi- 
neered plants has pre\(Mit('d the industrial sec- 
tor from mo\ ing toward comnu'rcial application 
of the new' technology. 
Only a few universities have e,\prrtisr in both 
plant and molecular biolog\’. In addition. onl\ .i 
few' scientists work with imnlern molecular 
techni(|ues related to w holi' plant problems .\s 
a result, a business firm could easily diwelop .i 
capability exceeding that at an\’ indi\idu.il I .S 
university. Howener, building industrial lahor.i 
lories and hiring from the uni\ ci sities could 
easily deplete? the? ex|)erti.s(‘ at the uni\ersit\ 
le\el. V\'ilh the? ri'cent iincstment acti\it\ in 
bioengineering firms, this tr»*nd has aliead\ 
