| Literature DB >> 32288638 |
Per M Stromberg1, Tom Dedeurwaerdere2, Unai Pascual3,4.
Abstract
Public service (ex situ) micro-organism collections serve to secure genetic resources for unforeseen future needs, and importantly, to provide authenticated biomaterials for contemporaneous use in private and public entities and as upstream research materials. Hence, it is important to understand the functioning and strategic decisions of these providers of public good resources. The existing literature tends to use case studies of individual collections. This paper uses a unique worldwide survey of microbial collections to analyse the heterogeneity among culture collections, and to empirically assess the economic and institutional conditions that contribute to this heterogeneity with respect to conservation choice and associated industry spillovers. Results suggest that in the short run public-private partnerships may indeed support knowledge accumulation with particularly strong public good properties. It is important to be aware of this strong tie, in order to steer also the long term conservation patrimony into one that offers not only short term usability but also resilience to future unforeseen needs e.g. of emerging crop plagues.Entities:
Keywords: Access and use of biodiversity; Genetic resources; Governance; Institutional analysis; Life science research
Year: 2013 PMID: 32288638 PMCID: PMC7106414 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.04.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Policy ISSN: 1462-9011 Impact factor: 5.581
Typology of culture collections with respect to collection, research and industry orientation.
| Culture collection type | Characteristics | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Mainly infrastructure oriented | Activities mainly for culture identification, conservation and distribution | - The German Resource Centre for Biological Material (DSMZ) |
| - Collection de L’Institut Pasteur, Institut Pasteur (CIP) | ||
| - The Spanish Type Culture Collection (CECT) | ||
| - Japan Collection of Microorganisms (JCM) | ||
| 2. Specialised industry oriented culture collection | Culture collection mainly for supporting a specialised private sector activities | - Forintec Canada Corp. |
| 3. Mainly research oriented | Combining culture collection and conservation with major in house research for public purposes, typically located in universities | - Belgian Co-ordinated Collections of Micro-Organisms: BCCM/LMG Bacteria Collection (LMG Ghent) |
| - Coriell Medical Research Institute | ||
| - National institute of allergy and infection disease | ||
| - Agricultural research service culture collection (NRRL) | ||
| 4. Specialised university research collections | Large in house collection, no systematic distribution service | - Institute of Fermentation Osaka |
| - Fusarium Research Centre, at PennState College of Agricultural Sciences | ||
| - Yale University CGSC Strain Collection ( |
Typology of PSMCs’ conservation focus.
| Type of conservation focus | Origin of the material | Characteristics of the holdings |
|---|---|---|
| Incidental | Mainly in house research, what the laboratory happens to produce | Characterised by depth (many different subspecies samples for each species) instead of breadth (many species) |
| Infrastructure/taxonomic | Mainly deposits for taxonomy and publications | Specialisation in type strains |
| Research | Mixed: in house research and deposits for taxonomy, publications and research collaborations | Importance of breadth of scope (large portfolio of micro-organisms, including type strains) |
Fig. 1The links between PSMCs’ microeconomic, institutional and organisational context, their conservation practices and industry spillovers.
Bivariate Tobit model: joint estimates of the effects on the share of type strains in stock and on the share of distribution to industry of microbes in general.
| Coeff | Std. error | Coeff | Std. error | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.06 | 0.08 | −0.75 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.59 | |
| −0.07 | 0.05 | −1.35 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 1.92 | |
| 0.32 | 0.13 | 2.39 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 3.18 | |
| −0.14 | 0.07 | −2.10 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.73 | |
| 0.25 | 0.10 | 2.58 | −0.07 | 0.10 | −0.77 | |
| −0.04 | 0.02 | −2.63 | −0.00 | 0.02 | −0.14 | |
| 0.04 | 0.02 | 1.89 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.08 | |
| −0.10 | 0.08 | −1.23 | −0.58 | 0.08 | −7.50 | |
| 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 3.70 | |
| −0.11 | 0.09 | −1.14 | 0.28 | 0.08 | 3.39 | |
| 0.11 | 0.06 | 1.92 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 2.98 | |
| −0.16 | 0.06 | −2.46 | −0.00 | 0.07 | −0.05 | |
| 0.10 | 0.05 | 1.93 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 3.62 | |
| −0.15 | 0.05 | −2.68 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.54 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.89 | |
| 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.47 | |
| 0.31 | 0.13 | 2.31 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.05 | |
| 0.27 | 0.08 | 3.27 | ||||
Number of observations = 103. Wald chi2 (18) = 278.25; Prob > chi2 = 0.0000. Likelihood ratio test of rho21 = 0: chi2(1) = 5.57, Prob > chi2 = 0.018. Interpretation of the table: The model is a two equations model, in which the upper half shows the equation with TSSHARE (ratio of type strains) as dependent variable. The lower half of the table shows the second equation with FLOWIND (share of microbes distributed to industry) as dependent variable. Note that the table show associations, not necessarily causal relationships. The stars indicate the level of significance, the sign of the coefficient shows the direction of the association between the individual covariate variable and the dependent variable in each equation.
Significant at 90% level.
Significant at 95% level.
Significant at 99% level.