The consumer-led backlash in Europe against genetically modified crops has forced some of the world's major players in agricultural biotech, most notably Monsanto, to beat a retreat. But the multinational behemoths are not the only ones taking a hit: Academic researchers across Europe are now becoming victims. Europe could see an exodus of plant biotech talent unless politicians "face up to their role as driving forces in society and send some clear signals as to their intentions with respect to this technology," says Claus Christiansen, research director of the Danish food giant Danisco.

The once-hot field has been cooling off for a few years, European plant biotechnologists say, since they began to sense that national research agencies were losing enthusiasm for their work. Industry too began to scale back its own research programs as well as collaborations with academic groups. But now the alarm bells are really ringing. Plant biotech fared poorly in the first round of grants in the $17.6 billion Fifth Framework Programme (FP5), the latest 5-year European Union (E.U.) effort to support cross-border R&D collaborations. Statistics from a researchers' umbrella organization, the European Plant Biotechnology Network (EPBN), suggest that in the various funding categories open to plant biotech proposals, only 3% to 10% of applications succeeded, compared with 10% to 30% in the previous Framework Programme.

Across the whole E.U., FP5 grants are spread pretty thinly, accounting for only about 5% of total public research funding, but they are increasingly important as catalysts. According to Oxford University's head of plant sciences, Christopher Leaver, E.U. funding is crucial in creating networks between research centers in different countries and for recruiting and training young scientists internationally.

One much cited casualty of FP5 is the "yellow rice" project headed by Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg in Germany and Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. With much fanfare, the E.U. announced last year that with FP4 funding the team had genetically engineered a rice strain to produce _-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. The scientific community and media hailed this as a triumph for plant biotechnology and raised hopes for battling vitamin A deficiency in the Third World. Despite huge interest from developing countries and additional support from overseas funding bodies, when the group applied for FP5 funds mainly to develop hardier strains that could be grown in the field, they were turned down. Potrykus interprets the cold shoulder from FP5 administrators in Brussels as "a reaction to the political climate in Europe with its strong negative feelings against GMOs [genetically modified organisms]."

E.U. officials dismiss the idea of a conspiracy against transgenic plant research. "There are no grounds for this rumor," says Bruno Hansen, director of FP5's Quality of Life program committee, which oversees most plant biotech funding. Still, other officials concede that plant biotech faces more hurdles within FP5 than in previous programs. The explicit aims of the Framework programs have always been to increase the competitiveness of European industry and support other E.U. goals, but areas of basic research thought important to industry, such as biotechnology, were widely supported. Now every grant must have an explicit payoff for European industry or E.U. socioeconomic efforts, making it difficult for basic research to find a niche. Under FP5, there is no longer a separate budget for plant biotechnology, so "plant projects, which are generally slow to deliver, are handicapped in competition with other organisms," says EPBN project manager Karin Meztlaff. Holger Rasmussen of the Danish Ministry of Research concedes that with Framework's new focus, scientists "have difficulties getting funding for less applied projects."

As if troubles at the pan-European level weren't enough, scientists worry that national funding agencies are also tuned in to public fears about transgenic foods. In the Netherlands, says plant geneticist Richard Visser of Wageningen University, shrinking public funds for fundamental research and industry's reluctance to support plant biotech projects are squeezing the field from both sides. The past year has been hard for Danish plant research too. A government-funded plant biotech program was not renewed when it ended last year, and the major industry research sponsor--Danisco, a food and ingredient company--has virtually pulled out of plant biotechnology. Many observers interpret this as a response to pressure at last year's stockholders meeting not to invest in GMOs. Across Europe, industry is battening down the hatches. Klaus H. Nielsen, director of research at Danish seed company DLF-Trifolium, says, "Apart from a few initiatives, everybody is waiting for the negative atmosphere to blow over."

But with the biotech industry becoming increasingly global, large corporations always have the option to move their research efforts, and collaborations with academic researchers, to parts of the world where conditions are more favorable. "We are following agrobiotech development closely, and it would be very sad if Europe were affected by the current GMO opposition and lost its science base," says Nigel Pool, director of external affairs with the Anglo-Swedish drug and biotech giant AstraZeneca. Researchers point out that European companies are already making significant investments overseas, such as the Swiss agrobiotech giant Novartis, which has put $600 million into a center for plant research in San Diego and is heavily supporting a center for plant genomics at the University of California, Berkeley.

So should European researchers keep their heads down and wait for public antipathy for their work to die down? Plant geneticist Jonathan Jones of the John Innes Centre near Norwich, U.K., predicts that "in the long run, European plant science will lose out if the current development continues. The most talented scientists will have to move elsewhere for opportunities, and Europe will see fewer start-up companies in the plant biotechnology sector." Oxford's Leaver adds that "recruiting top-quality workers for plant research at the postgraduate and postdoctoral level is a major problem in the U.K.," where concerns about GM foods run particularly deep. And in Germany, plant geneticist Heinz Saeidler of the Max Planck Institute for plant propagation research in Cologne says he is getting fewer students, who see poor career prospects in such an unpopular field.

Most researchers believe the public will come to embrace transgenic crops, especially after future varieties show traits that genuinely benefit consumers, such as increased nutritional value or the elimination of natural allergens. But by then it may be too late for European researchers. "The worst case scenario is Europe taking a break to think about things," warns Nielsen. "By not concentrating on this research now we risk having to import the future products of plant biotechnology from elsewhere."

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **