BBSRC REVIEW OF FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN FARM ANIMAL GENETICS AND GENOMICS

Thank you for the opportunity for FAWC to respond to the BBSRC review on Farm Animal Genetics and Genomics.

General:

(A) We refer the panel to the recently published FAWC report on Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies (copy enclosed and available to down load at www.fawc.org.uk). We anticipate that the panel will read carefully the concerns aired in that document and take seriously the challenge that animal breeding in the future must not repeat mistakes of the past with respect to health and welfare traits. Other relevant issues raised in the report are:

(1) The need for much better information on health and welfare traits from the field and associated analysis of phenotypic and genetic trends. This seems to map closely to the need for properly phenotyped populations to which quantitative and molecular approaches can be applied.

(2) The need to consider broader (ethical) issues arising from genetic and genomic approaches to animal breeding.

(3) The need to work in close partnership with breeding companies which often now operate on a global rather than UK basis.

(4) The need for breeding activities to be overseen by a Standing Committee, a suggestion which is currently being considered by ministers.

(B) The review purports to cover both genetics and genomics but is actually almost wholly focused on genomics. FAWC is primarily interested in using science to improve animal health and welfare. It is concerning that the focus of the BBSRC on cutting edge genomic technologies which have yet to deliver any real progress in animal breeding could significantly reduce investment in less ‘blue skies’ research which would be more likely to lead to improvement in health and welfare in the medium term. In particular FAWC would like to see a much bigger emphasis in the Review on quantitative genetics and encouraging linkages between quantitative and molecular approaches.

In response to the specific questions:

1. The UK should be investing in Genetics and Genomics research; where government is making this investment then the strategy should be set within the framework of sustainable livestock systems. FAWC would like to see appropriate prioritisation given to health and welfare issues.

2. The FAWC report clearly demonstrates the potential risks of breeding for animal welfare and this must be taken into account in the future. On the positive side there are many welfare problems which are open to genetic solutions and these should be pursued with vigour. Given that research on genetic health and welfare will require close interaction with industrial partnership there should be a greater drive to spend more BBSRC research funding within the Sustainable Livestock LINK programme.

3. There are many potential ethical issues and again the panel should refer to the FAWC report and to other relevant reports from the Royal Society and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC). Some ethical issues may be more amenable to solution through a combination of quantitative and molecular genetic approaches (e.g. the use of economics to derive non-market values for welfare traits in multi-trait breeding indices).

4. FAWC is pleased in principle to see research areas mentioned which have relevance to animal welfare including the possibility of using genetic selection to address animal behaviour and welfare. However, work of this nature carried out in isolation to society’s concerns could tempt accusations of unnecessarily manipulating animals to fit systems. Hence the BBSRC needs to exercise judgement as to whether funding in this area is within the spirit of developing sustainable livestock systems for the future.

5. FAWC would like to see a focus on traits that directly affect animal health and welfare such as disease resistance, stress and behaviour.

6. All species currently farmed in the UK should be considered important.

7. See answers to (1) , (4), (5) and (6).

8. FAWC is concerned about the focus of this question on economic returns and why there is no reference to return of public benefits as would result for example from research on welfare.

9. The UK has an opportunity to make a substantial and world leading impact in the genetics of health and welfare, due to the existence of research groups with the required critical mass in areas such as quantitative and molecular genetics, animal health and animal behaviour and welfare.

10. FAWC does have some concerns that genetics/genomics research could lead to selection programmes designed to deliver animals able to better produce in sub-optimal conditions (e.g. through selection for disease resistance).

11. Effectively linking phenotypes to genetics.

12. Public concern over the use of genetics/genomics should not be underestimated and could lead to significant delays in implementation of research results.

13. The LINK programme is very effective at bringing academics and industry together – the Standing Committee recommended by FAWC could also be useful in terms of the interaction between industry, scientists and society.

14. FAWC does agree that genetics/genomics research in animal health and welfare should be a BBSRC priority. Areas that should be considered include: neonatal survival, robust/easy care animals, health traits in all species.

15. No opinion.

16. and 17.See comments on (2) and (13) suggesting that there should be a far greater emphasis on LINK funding by the BBSRC in order to improve interface between academics and industry.

18. No opinion.

19. No opinion.

20. Most work on genetics and genomics of health and welfare should be pre-competitive given that without that incentive industrial partners will often be unwilling to become involved.

21. Generally there should be a recognition of the need to support populations for phenotyping as without these resources the advantages particularly of genomics will be increasingly difficult to realise.

22. Commercial herds should play an important role in the future and it should be possible for appropriate levels of support to be found to support their use. The advantage is that in many cases they represent the only populations large enough and with sufficient pedigree information for genetic studies; the disadvantage is that without sufficient financial investment and/ or business interest the companies priorities may not align with those of the researchers.

23. No opinion.

24. No opinion

25. No opinion

26. No opinion

27. See answers to (2) and (13)

28. No opinion

29. No opinion

30. No opinion

31. See answers to (2) and (13)

32. In general this is an area of research that requires partnership to be successful. That means a greater focus on strategic research that will attract the attention and interest of stakeholders.

33. No opinion

We hope that these comments prove useful to the BBSRC and FAWC would be happy to be involved in any further discussions.