Climate-ready crops: Intellectual property, agriculture, and climate change

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agriculture: 'Seeds are at the centre of a complex political dynamic between stakeholders. Access to seeds concerns the balance between private rights and public obligations, private ownership and the public domain, and commercial versus humanitarian objectives.' Part I of this chapter considers debates in respect of plant breeders’ rights, food security and climate change in relation to the UPOV Convention 1991. Part II explores efforts by agricultural biotechnology companies to patent climate-ready crops. Part III considers the report of the Special Rapporteur for Food, Olivier De Schutter. It looks at a variety of options to encourage access to plant varieties with climate adaptive or mitigating properties.

Single-cell-precision microplasma-induced cancer cell apoptosis

The issue of single-cell control has recently attracted enormous interest. However, in spite of the presently achievable intracellular-level physiological probing through bio-photonics, nano-probe-based, and some other techniques, the issue of inducing selective, single-cell-precision apoptosis, without affecting neighbouring cells remains essentially open. Here we resolve this issue and report on the effective single-cell-precision cancer cell treatment using the reactive chemistry of the localized corona-type plasma discharge around a needle-like electrode with the spot size ∼1 µm. When the electrode is positioned with the micrometer precision against a selected cell, a focused and highly-localized micro-plasma discharge induces apoptosis in the selected individual HepG2 and HeLa cancer cells only, without affecting any surrounding cells, even in small cell clusters. This is confirmed by the real-time monitoring of the morphological and structural changes at the cellular and cell nucleus levels after the plasma exposure.

Effect of position on precision within the recording field of a markerless motion capture system

Introduction Markerless motion capture systems are relatively new devices that can significantly speed up capturing full body motion. A precision of the assessment of the finger’s position with this type of equipment was evaluated at 17.30 ± 9.56 mm when compare to an active marker system [1]. The Microsoft Kinect was proposed to standardized and enhanced clinical evaluation of patients with hemiplegic cerebral palsy [2]. Markerless motion capture systems have the potential to be used in a clinical setting for movement analysis, as well as for large cohort research. However, the precision of such system needs to be characterized. Global objectives • To assess the precision within the recording field of the markerless motion capture system Openstage 2 (Organic Motion, NY). • To compare the markerless motion capture system with an optoelectric motion capture system with active markers. Specific objectives • To assess the noise of a static body at 13 different location within the recording field of the markerless motion capture system. • To assess the smallest oscillation detected by the markerless motion capture system. • To assess the difference between both systems regarding the body joint angle measurement. Methods Equipment • OpenStage® 2 (Organic Motion, NY) o Markerless motion capture system o 16 video cameras (acquisition rate : 60Hz) o Recording zone : 4m * 5m * 2.4m (depth * width * height) o Provide position and angle of 23 different body segments • VisualeyezTM VZ4000 (PhoeniX Technologies Incorporated, BC) o Optoelectric motion capture system with active markers o 4 trackers system (total of 12 cameras) o Accuracy : 0.5~0.7mm Protocol & Analysis • Static noise: o Motion recording of an humanoid mannequin was done in 13 different locations o RMSE was calculated for each segment in each location • Smallest oscillation detected: o Small oscillations were induced to the humanoid mannequin and motion was recorded until it stopped. o Correlation between the displacement of the head recorded by both systems was measured. A corresponding magnitude was also measured. • Body joints angle: o Body motion was recorded simultaneously with both systems (left side only). o 6 participants (3 females; 32.7 ± 9.4 years old) • Tasks: Walk, Squat, Shoulder flexion & abduction, Elbow flexion, Wrist extension, Pronation / supination (not in results), Head flexion & rotation (not in results), Leg rotation (not in results), Trunk rotation (not in results) o Several body joint angles were measured with both systems. o RMSE was calculated between signals of both systems. Results Conclusion Results show that the Organic Motion markerless system has the potential to be used for assessment of clinical motor symptoms or motor performances However, the following points should be considered: • Precision of the Openstage system varied within the recording field. • Precision is not constant between limb segments. • The error seems to be higher close to the range of motion extremities.