Representatives from seven scientific academies — two from the developed world and five from the developing world — are planning to meet early next year to agree on guidelines for the type of biotechnology that is most appropriate to developing countries.

The meeting will be the second — the first was held in London in July — of a working group set up to work towards a common position on the scientific and technological priorities for biotechnology in developing nations (see Nature 399, 721; 1999).

The latter are represented on the committee by scientists from the national academies of India, China, Mexico and Brazil — precisely the countries that are engaged in public debate about the relative merits and dangers of the use of biotechnology in crop production — as well as the Third World Academy of Sciences. The developed world is represented by Britain's Royal Society, and the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.

“We are gathering material from the countries concerned to flesh out what is thought to be important for food production in each of them,” says Brian Heap, foreign secretary of the Royal Society and an endocrine physiologist who was formerly director of the Babraham Institute, Cambridge.

“We hope to draw together the details in a paper that will, for example, specify the type of trait qualities that will be important for crops in the future. We hope to come to some consensus focusing on what may be called ‘phase two’ alterations in genetically modified crops, in contrast to the phase one modifications already familiar in developed countries, such as herbicide resistance.”

One priority that could be endorsed in such a document, he suggests, is the importance of constructs that increase vitamin A production. “I am also particularly keen to see the problem of anaemia addressed, and in that context increasing the iron content of crops must also be a high priority.”

Heap says that the working group is not seeking to diminish the importance of cash crops. “But we are also keen to see emphasis given to such quality traits.”

Intellectual property issues have already been high on the working group's agenda. Heap says “we may come forward with recommendations”, adding that input from the representatives of the less developed countries will be essential.

“So far we have got quite a measure of agreement and understanding,” says Heap. He accepts that in some countries there is strong opposition to the introduction of genetically modifed crops, but says that this will be met through the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ — the idea that individual members will be free to adopt their own local practices.

“Our concern is to make sure that if there is a clear scientific case for the development of these technologies for the less developed countries, and that they will really make a contribution to food security, then we should say that.”