Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-02T23:17:54.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting the utilization of plant, animal and microbial genetic resources for research and development in biotechnology: evidence on researchers' preferences for specific attributes from Korean genebanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2015

Bongsuk Sung  and
Kyungyun Hwang
Bongsuk Sung
Affiliation:
Department of International Business Management, Woosong University, 186, Jayang-dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon300-718, Republic of Korea
Kyungyun Hwang*
Affiliation:
Foundation of University-Industry Research Collaboration, Chungnam National University, 99 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon305-764, Republic of Korea
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: hwang@cnu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With regard to the survey data of Korean researchers using genetic resources from three genebanks administered by the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, we conducted conjoint and cluster analyses to estimate the relative importance of genetic resource (microbial, plant and animal) attributes among the researchers. Our results indicate that Korean researchers view price (cost of acquiring an accession), high new functionality (functional properties of germplasms for specific applications and uses) and completely uncovered genomic information (about mutation, genetic transformation, genomic function and pathways) as far more important in decision-making about R&D use of microbial, plant and animal genetic resources, respectively, than other attributes. Furthermore, this study shows that researchers conducting R&D in the microbial and plant genetic resource sectors especially prefer resources from specific domestic environments and Korean indigenous species, respectively. The study also sheds light on different patterns of researcher segments in terms of utilities of attributes and subgroups of researchers who have common needs in the three genetic resource sectors. We proposed some policy and strategic implications based on the results of this study.

Keywords

cluster analysisconjoint analysisgenebankgenetic resource utilizationutility
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 195 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alreck, PL and Settle, RB (2004) The Survey Research Handbook. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Adamowicz, W, Boxall, P, Williams, M and Louviere, J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64–75.Google Scholar
Ahtiainen, H and Pouta, E (2011) The value of genetic resources in agriculture: a meta-analysis assessing existing knowledge and future research needs. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 7: 27–38.Google Scholar
Ajani, EN, Mgbenka, RN and Okeke, MM (2013) Use of indigenous knowledge as a strategy for climate change adaptation among farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: implications for policy. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 2: 23–40.Google Scholar
Antofie, M-M (2009) Current political commitments' challenges for ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Analele Universităţii din Oradea – Fascicula Biologie 18: 157–163.Google Scholar
Bosso, NA (2006) Genetic improvement of livestock in tsetse infested areas in West Africa. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, 147 pp..Google Scholar
BPRC (Biotech Policy Research Center)(2008) The national master plan for the securing, management and use of biological and genetic resources for biotechnology R&D, BT Policy Report 2008-1, BPRC. Daejeon, Korea..Google Scholar
Brown, GM (1991) Valuation of genetic resources. In: Orians, GH, Brown, GM, Kunin, WE and Swierbinski, JE (eds) The Preservation and Valuation of Biological Resources. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, pp. 203–245.Google Scholar
Cattin, P and Punj, G (1984) Factors influencing the selection of preference model form for continuous utility functions in conjoint analysis. Marketing Science 3: 73–82.Google Scholar
Chee, YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation 120: 459–565.Google Scholar
CIE (Centre for International Economics) (2001) Review of willingness-to-pay methodologies, prepared for the Independent and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. Canberra, Australia..Google Scholar
Cohen, JI, Williams, JT, Plucknett, DL and Shands, H (1991) Ex situ conservation of plant genetic resource: global development and environmental concerns. Science 253: 866–872.Google Scholar
Day-Rubenstein, K and Smale, M (2004) International exchange of genetic resources, the role of information and implications for ownership: the case of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. EPTD Discussion Paper No.119, Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington..Google Scholar
Engels, JMM and Fassil, H (2009) Plant and animal genebanks. In: Squires, VR (ed.) The Role of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in Human Nutrition. vol. III. Oxford, UK: Encyclopedia of Life support systems, pp. 144–174.Google Scholar
Gollin, D and Evenson, R (2003) Valuing animal genetic resources: lessons from plant genetic resources. Ecological Economics 45: 353–363.Google Scholar
Green, PE and Srinivasan, V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. The Journal of Marketing 54: 3–19.Google Scholar
Green, P and Wind, Y (1975) New ways to measure consumers' judgments. Harvard Business Review 53: 107–117.Google Scholar
Halbrendt, CK, Wirth, FF and Vaughn, GF (1991) Conjoint analysis of the mid-Atlantic food-fish market for farm-raised hybrid striped bass. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 21: 155–163.Google Scholar
Harrison, RW, Ozayan, A and Meyers, SP (1998) A conjoint analysis of new food products processed from underutilized small crawfish. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 30: 257–265.Google Scholar
Karniouchina, EV, Moore, WL, Van der Rhee, V and Verma, R (2009) Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research. European Journal of Operational Research 197: 340–348.Google Scholar
Khoury, C, Laliberté, B and Guarino, L (2010) Trends in ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources: a review of global crop and regional conservation strategies. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 57: 625–639.Google Scholar
Kim, N-S, Kim, J-S and Cho, I-M (2013) A study on the strategies for value improvement and application of the bio-resources derived from humans, animals and plants. Report to National Research Foundation of Korea, Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Daejeon, Korea..Google Scholar
KOBIC (Korean Bioinformation Center) (2011) Korean statistics for genetic resources for biotechnology R&D, 2010. Report to the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP), Korean Bioinformation Center, Daejeon, Korea..Google Scholar
Malhotra, NK, Hall, J, Shaw, M and Crisp, M (1999) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Maxted, N, Ford-Lloyd, BV and Hawkes, JC (1997) Complementary conservation strategies. In: Maxted, N, Ford-Lloyd, BV and Hawkes, JC (eds) Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 15–40.Google Scholar
McCouch, SR, McNally, KL, Wang, W and Hamilton, RS (2012) Genomics of gene banks: a case study in rice. American Journal of Botany 99: 407–423.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, R (2003) The challenge of conserving indigenous domesticated animals. Ecological Economics 45: 501–510.Google Scholar
MSIP (Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning), MAFRA (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs), MOTIE (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy), MW (Ministry of Health and Welfare), ME (Ministry of Environment), MOF (Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries), RDA (Rural Development Administration), KFS (Korea Forest Service), and MFDS (Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) (2011) Basic Plan for Management of Genetic Resources for Biotechnology R&D (2011–2020), Korea..Google Scholar
MSIP, MAFRA, MOTIE, MW, ME, MOF, RDA, KFS and MFDS (2013) 2013 Plan for Implementation of the Basic Plan for the Management of Genetic Resources for Biotechnology R&D (2011–2020), Korea..Google Scholar
Nijkamp, P, Vindigni, G and Nunes, PALD (2008) Economic valuation of biodiversity: a comparative study. Ecological Economics 67: 217–231.Google Scholar
Pascual, U, Muradian, R, Brander, L, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Martín-López, B and Verma, M (2010) The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Kumar, P (ed.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. London: Earthscan, pp. 183–256.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, M (2008) The role of gene banks. Paper presented at the Nordic Seminar on the Cultural Heritage of Plant Genetic Resources, 17th–18th November 2008, Hillerød, Denmark..Google Scholar
Roosen, J, Fadlaoui, A and Bertaglia, M (2003) Economic evaluation and biodiversity conservation of animal genetic resources. FE Working Paper #0304, Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany..Google Scholar
Rubenstein, KD, Heisey, P, Shoemaker, R, Sullivan, J and Frisvold, G (2005) Crop genetic resources: an economic appraisal. Economic Information Bulletin 2, Economic Research Service/USDA, USA..Google Scholar
Schei, PJ and Tvedt, MW (2010) ‘Genetic resources’ in the CBD: the wording, the past, the present and the future. Genetics 6: 533–543.Google Scholar
Shin, JY, Bae, SC and Yoon, KS (2011) A study on the trend analysis and legal protection of new intellectual properties – focusing the access and use of genetic resources on the basis of patent. Report to the Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), Daejeon, Korea..Google Scholar
Smale, M and Koo, B (2003) Biotechnology and Genetic Resource Policies: What is a Genebank Worth? Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Brief 7.Google Scholar
Smale, M and Day-Rubenstein, K (2002) The demand for crop genetic resources: international use of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System. World Development 30: 1639–1655.Google Scholar
Ukalska, J and Kociuba, W (2013) Phenotypical diversity of winter triticale genotypes collected in the Polish gene bank between 1982 and 2008 with regards to major quantitative traits. Field Crops Research 149: 203–212.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, HD, Gowda, GLL and Sastry, DVSSR (2008) Plant genetic resources management: collection, characterization, conservation and utilization. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 6: 1–15.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sung and Hwang supplementary material

Sung and Hwang supplementary material 1

Download Sung and Hwang supplementary material(File)
File 460.3 KB