QHow much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida?

How much have the biotech companies donated to the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida?

AExpert Answer

We get this question a lot, mostly because U.F. faculty do take the time to help actively clarify biotech concepts for public audiences. Some folks immediately question the integrity of public scientists who step out of the lab and talk to the public, inferring some level of financial motivation. That’s sad, because communicating science is an important part of our job.  

But to answer the question: There are zero “donations.” At least during the last five years (all I checked), there are not even any grants or research agreements between the Horticultural Sciences Department at U.F. and any company selling biotech seeds. It is a horticulture department that focuses on traditional plant breeding, organic production, conventional production, physiology, biochemistry and genomics of fruits and vegetables—none of which are transgenic (GMO). The transgenic crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, etc.—stuff not really grown in Florida anyway, at least in terms of major acreage.

 

During the last five years, at the whole university, there were a total of $21,000 in Monsanto grants to one faculty member in the panhandle who studies weeds. That’s it for the whole university. 

Our records are all public, so anyone could have found this information. 

Fifteen years ago, the Monsanto Company provided funds to hire a professor. That person (Dr. Mark Settles) does work in cellular biology and development, and he is 100% government funded. He does no work related to biotech crops, and it is a good thing when companies finance positions to help educate our students and perform important research. 

 

The question asked raises an unfortunate point: the perception that some company can buy or control what public scientists say. You’ll never find a more independent group of scientists dedicated to working in the public interest than you’ll find here. There is no price tag on that commitment. 

Posted on May 4, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on May 4, 2018
There would be more public seed development if genome editing technologies like CRISPR are not regulated as GMOs. Single point mutations are an extension of the undirected mutation breeding that is commonly used now. Having genome editing regulated like conventional plant breeding would allow university plant breeders to use the technology to develop new varieties without the stigmatism of them being GMOs. As for would it allow for more start-up seed companies, this is more doubtful. It is... Read More
Posted on April 18, 2018
GMO Answers provides the facts that answer questions related to biotechnology, GM crops and agriculture. We work to ensure that the content and answers provided by experts and companies are accurate and therefore do not present opinions about GMOs, simply facts. GMO Answers is a community focused on constructive discussion about GMOs in order to have open conversations about agriculture and GMOs. This website is funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information. The Council... Read More