|
 |
 
Download Pdf of Rice Today article
Download Pdf of the full transcript
Nyle C. Brady:
The problem solver
On
the faculty of Cornell University from 1947 to 1973,
Nyle C. Brady became IRRI’s third director
general in
1973. During 8 years at the helm,
he
pioneered new cooperative relationships between the Institute
and the national agricultural research systems in Asia.
After
IRRI, he served as senior assistant administrator for science and technology at
USAID from 1981 to 1989 and was also a senior international develop-ment
consultant for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World
Bank in Washington,
D.C. Born in Colorado in the United States, he earned his BS in chemistry from
Brigham Young University in 1941 and his PhD in soil science from North Carolina
State University in 1947. He is Emeritus Professor at Cornell. He is the
co-author (with Ray R. Weil) of the classic textbook,
The Nature and Properties of Soils,
now in its
14th edition.
He and his wife Martha are retired
and live near Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Coming to IRRI
Having worked at the nearby
University of the Philippines at Los Baņos as a visiting Cornell
professor, I knew of the area and the plans to set up the Institute when
[IRRI’s first director general]
 Bob
Chandler and his group did so in the early 1960s. In 1972,
Frosty [Forrest F., Ford Foundation vice president of overseas
development] Hill and chairman of IRRI’s board of
trustees [photo left], asked me if I wanted the job of director general.
I had been working at Cornell
University as Director of Research in the College of Agriculture. I
asked a few friends what they thought and they said that it would be a
good thing. So, I decided to try it. Of course, I also had to get
permission from my wife [Martha] and she was delighted to go back to the
Philippines with me.
Challenges and achievements in the 1970s
In those days, I thought the greatest challenge for IRRI was
to influence, to the degree it could, quality research for our
collaborators in developing countries. IRRI had made great progress, but
it did not always communicate well. [We needed to foster] international
cooperation between IRRI scientists and those in the developing world’s
rice countries.
This
also involved interdisciplinary collaboration to increase rice production around the world. When I arrived [at IRRI],
there were four different rice improvement research programs,
i.e., in plant breeding, entomology, plant pathology, and agronomy. This
was good because it was competitive, but I said, “Let’s see what we can
do if we can get together to develop a truly interdisciplinary
collaborative research program.” And we did, making full use of the
thousands of genetic accessions in IRRI's germplasm bank.
Back then, the germplasm bank holdings were in paper bags! A
fire could have destroyed everything. So, the first thing we had to do
was to build [in 1976-77] a truly modern facility to store the seeds
[photo below right shows Dr. Brady on 9 November 1976 ceremoniously
sinking the first pile for the Rice Genetics Laboratory that would
officially (unbeknownst to him at the
 time)
bear his name only a few years later].
We also
began evaluating those cultivars [housed in the new Rice Genetic
Resources Laboratory, which on 24 October 1981 would be named the N.C.
Brady Laboratory] for their resistance to different insects and diseases
and for their tolerance of acidic, saline, and toxic soils and drought.
Every department was involved. The plant breeders’ products were
evaluated by the entomologists, the plant pathologists, the agronomists,
and the social scientists in terms of what was useful to them and to the
farmers whom they were representing. This is how the
Genetic Evaluation and Utilization Program (GEU as it was known)
came into existence. I think it really revolutionized, internally, our
ability to provide the world with products that could be used in
breeding programs elsewhere.
The GEU was basically a plant breeding and genetic
improvement program that the whole Institute was concerned with. And as
far as I was concerned, it was fantastic! When we first started working
on [this concept], there were some in the group who were not exactly
enthusiastic, at least in dealing with me on this. But very soon, I
began to listen to them as they gave speeches talking about this
Institute-wide genetic evaluation and utilization program, which basically
involved evaluation of rice lines the breeders had developed.
Establishing INGER
Klaus Lampe, IRRI director general, 1988-95 talks about the legacy of Dr. Brady
I won’t take credit for starting INGER (International
Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice).
In those early days, it was known as the International Rice Testing
Program and it was already in existence when I arrived. I thought it was
a wonderful idea. Ev erybody
ran the same kind of various tests, in various environments, around the
world. And we got better at keeping records at the same time.
When I first asked to see data that was coming from our
cooperators, I was told that we didn’t get too much data back. Something
was wrong. So, we called the cooperators in and set up a committee of
scientists from the various countries to determine what was going to be
done, how it was going to be done, and what they wanted IRRI to help
them with. The year after that, we got piles of data coming from the
collaborators. In time, when a study was made to determine what IRRI had
accomplished in Asia that is most helpful to the scientists in different
countries, the answer was the International Rice Testing Program and
what later became INGER.
A personal frustration
My biggest frustration was kind of a personal one. I had
served on the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of
Agriculture for a couple of years as a visiting Cornell professor. I
thought: “Oh my, it will be so easy to increase considerably the
collaboration between the University staff and the IRRI staff.” I did
indeed meet one of my primary objectives to increase this collaboration,
but it never reached the level I had hoped for it in terms of the
satisfaction of the scientists at both institutions and in terms of the
collaboration that one would expect to take place. It was there, but it
could have been better.
It's IRRI class
I’ll tell one story that relates to not the scientists but to
a member of the [nonresearch] support staff at the Institute, a Filipino. The CGIAR (Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research) was holding one
of its annual meetings in Manila and the participants decided to visit IRRI
on a Sunday. When checking to see that everything was prepared for the
luncheon to be served to this group, I approached one of the young
ladies who was helping with the service.
“Well, do you think it is first class?” I asked.
“No sir,” she said, “it’s better than that. It’s IRRI
class.”
This told me that she had pride in IRRI and in being
associated with the Institute, which I thought was just great.
Not the most popular DG
I wasn’t always the most popular DG. You could ask anyone
who stayed there for awhile. Some didn’t particularly like me because
they thought maybe I was too demanding when I called them late at night
for something. But what is of interest to me is that when I called upon
scientists to go out of their way to do extra work or to take on an
assignment over the weekend, I was never turned down. This was not
because they were afraid of me, but because they loved their work and
they loved IRRI. They were dedicated to the Institution and it was a great
joy for me to see that happen.
Colleagues of note
 Gurdev
Khush [IRRI breeder, 1967-2001] and
Hank Beachell [IRRI breeder, 1963-72] were a great team [and
destined to receive jointly the 1996 World Food Prize], both of
them fantastic scientists, different in their approaches, but equally
effective in evaluating the materials in the germplasm bank, bringing
them together in proper crosses, and then evaluating those for various
purposes. So, I have nothing but respect for the plant breeders headed
by Drs. Khush and Beachell.
T.T. Chang [IRRI
geneticist, 1962-91, photo right with Pope John Paul II] was a
remarkable, remarkable person. He was known primarily for his meticulous
efforts. He was very careful to see to it that the evaluation was done
properly, done right. As a consequence, he was highly respected around
the world. After he left IRRI, the Vatican chose him to help organize a
series
 of
global research conferences dealing not only with rice but other
subjects as well. T.T. was a joy; he was a good person to have around
who made remarkable contributions.
Kwanchai Gomez was head of the Statistics Department [1969-93,
photo left], but she was also a great organizer. For the GEU Program,
she was the one that kept the records of what was going on. I remember
going to meetings during which she said: “Now you guys I know have been
doing some studies to determine resistance to various insects and
diseases, but I don’t have any records of what you’ve done. I can’t
write it up if you don’t tell me about it.” So she got on their backs
and she was
remarkable in that way.
Likewise,
Lina Manalo-Vergara [IRRI’s first librarian, 1961-93; photo
right], is another I always thought of very highly. Behind the scenes,
she would go out of her way to see to it that library patrons were able
to get the literature that they needed. She often did it personally, not
just turning it over to her staff to take care of.
Among the scientists,
S.K. De Datta [IRRI agronomist, 1964-91, photo b elow
left] would be right at the top. There was nothing he would not do to
further the research efforts. I’ve mentioned the networks that we
created. He set up INSFER
(International Network for Soil Fertility Evaluation for Rice)
in the same way. And he had great luck in dealing with scientists in
other countries. They did not feel like he was using them. They felt
that they were part of a truly collaborative effort.
I’ll tell one story about S.K. I found that he had requested
the purchase of an electron microscope.
“What is this SK?,” I asked. “Don’t the records show that
you already an electron microscope?”
“No, he said, “that’s not what I wanted; it was some other
kind of equipment, not an electron microscope.”
But, I looked at the records again and that was actually
what he had requested.
I said, “you already have one.”
Then, he finally admitted he was just trying to get an extra
one for his large staff. So, I teased him
about the fact that he wanted to have the best and the best of the best,
which was a good characteristic [in a scientist]. He was indeed a loyal
as well as competent scientist.
Ben Vergara [first senior staff in plant physiology,
1961-95; photo left] was, I think, very influential, not only in terms
of the deepwater rice area that he had responsibility for, but in
helping to characterize rice research in helping people to understand
rice. He was interested in helping farmers and their families. He put
out these little booklets dealing with various aspect of rice culture,
rice diseases, and problems, a nd
so forth. He became known around the world for his very effective
communication efforts. He joined with the communicators in putting
together these little booklets, which helped to humanize IRRI. We were
not just a bunch of scientists, many from rich countries, but people who
cared about the small farmer, cared about the little guy. Ben did a good
job and he worked a lot with IRRI’s communication specialists
Tom Hargrove, [IRRI editor and eventual unit head, 1973-91;
photo right] and
Walt Rockwood [IRRI editor, 1975-82] who were very helpful.
We were the first institute to put out an annual report that
we called IRRI’s
 Research
Highlights. It was designed for busy administrators who didn’t have
time to read a thick report. They could read this simple presentation
and yet understand what we were doing. They could see that IRRI
researchers were working on problems and solving them. And there were
some problems that we hadn’t solved and more work needed to be done. I
personally was congratulated by the CGIAR representatives for this
little booklet, the Research Highlights, which continued on for several
years after I left IRRI. It was necessary for the communicators to help
us visualize IRRI as an institute set up to help others not an institute
to serve just itself. I was very appreciative of these communication
efforts.
Joyce
Torio [Information Services Head, 1974-78] was one who likewise
was very influential and very dedicated in trying to help with this
effort of communicating with people on the outside.
Also,
Richard Harwood [IRRI agronomist, 1973-76; photo right], and
those who followed him dealt with the Rice Systems Program [Asian
Cropping Systems Network] for farmers who grow rice with other
crops. I was very much impressed—eventually. I wasn’t to begin with I
must confess. This was one effort that I was permissive toward [in the
beginning], but as it moved along I began to see that it really had
something to offer because the researchers were putting themselves into
the farmers’ real world. They were not just [immersed in] chemistry and
physics, plant breeding, and biochemistry, but they were [beginning to
understand] the farmer and his family living out there in the
countryside having to grow other crops with his rice. And they were
helping him use the right kind of systems to not only improve his yields
but also the welfare of his family. So, it was great to see this unfold
and I want to give full credit to those who took part in developing this
effort.
Challenges for IRRI today
I think IRRI
needs to make effective use of biotechnology and other modern research tools to help the plant breeders
develop rice lines that efficiently utilize plant nutrients, that
tolerate adverse conditions such as drought, and that are resistant to insects and diseases,
thereby reducing the need for pesticides.
To do this, IRRI
must have linkages with
scientists in both the developing and the more developed countries. This
is advice the whole
CGIAR [Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research] system could accept. I
recognize the political reasons why this is difficult because some
countries don’t want biotechnology to be used for this purpose. But the
developing countries need the improved crops much more than we do in the
U.S. So, I think this is the direction in which IRRI and other such
centers should and could
go.
IRRI must
also continue to push what it has been doing
lately—more after I left than when I was there—to recognize the
consequences of what we do to the environment in terms of pesticide
use—and fertilizer use, i.e., nitrogen getting into the water cau sing
troubles later on. This is being done, but I think even more can be
done. I think this is an opportunity for IRRI to develop high yields of
quality rice in such a way that the soil, water, and atmosphere will not
be adversely affected. It’s a real challenge to know exactly how that
should be done, but I think it can be done. I’m not suggesting that the
Institute is
not doing it; IRRI has already made remarkable progress, particularly
with its
Environmental Agenda.
IRRI in Africa
I think IRRI should collaborate to any degree it can with the
African countries. We do know that ther e
are some challenges there because of the civil unrest and so forth that
make it difficult to have long-term research efforts. If we move toward
the development of tools that will help evaluate drought tolerance and
put together many combinations that will really result in
drought-tolerant plants, Africa will be the first to make real progress
in this area.
Africa has already made great progress in developing insect and
disease resistance. That’s only the beginning because IRRI has properly
focused primarily on Asian rice, but I see no reason why we should not
be able to do likewise in Africa and, here again, that’s where I think
there ought to be efforts to involve the more developed countries. Their
scientists should come in with the best techniques they have to help
bring together the genetic combinations that will give African farmers
what they need and better rice for the people. For example, the
potential of better nutrition through
Golden Rice [above left] to fight blindness is just fantastic.
IRRI could and should play a major role in that regard. It’s an
opportunity to help truly poor people.
Should have used kid gloves
As a manager, I could have used more kid gloves. Sometimes, I
was rather adamant on what I wanted done and, I guess, if I could do it
again I’d be a little more gentle in my interaction with people and in
working with them.
Also, I think I would have also used a different technique
in working with the
University of the Philippines at Los Baņos. I may have gotten
involved much more myself. I took the attitude that my Filipino
colleagues were best able to handle the working relationship with the
University. As a result, I may have given the University the impression
that they were not important enough to grab my attention. I was asking
somebody else to do this and even maybe had the University think that
collaboration with them was not my idea in the first place.
I think if I
could do it again, I would go over and sit down with some of the
colleagues that I had when I was there as a professor and say, “Look
things are not going like they should. What should we do? What needs to
be done here now to bring about the kind of collaboration that we should
have?” I want to emphasize that I don’t think collaboration with the
University was poor. I just don’t think it was as good as it could have
been.
We were there to solve problems
My IRRI experience has to rank very high. I had three
careers: one at Cornell as a professor and a teacher, one at IRRI, and
then one in Washington, D.C. with the
U.S. Agency for International Development,
the United Nations Development Programme, and
The World Bank.
I wouldn’t want to
say which one is the more critical. I would say that my experience at
IRRI, not only for me but for my wife and family, was a highlight and
t here’s no question about it because I felt I was involved in something
that would help humanity. I felt I
was involved with a group of individuals, men and women, who wanted to
improve the lot of people. They were not there just to do research work;
they were not there just to write research papers; they were there to
solve problems.
I remember one time, I
think,
grassy stunt virus (photo right) suddenly invaded the
Philippines. What did we do? Within a month, we had already evaluated
and found certain lines that were resistant to the grassy stunt virus
and our plant breeders were already crossing them to develop acceptable
rice varieties. That kind of effort really is heart-warming.
Official reports don’t necessarily tell the true story
I just want to say you’re doing a good thing. I may
look back too much as to how we used to do things, but I do think there
are some lessons that we can learn from our past. I learned lessons from
my experiences at IRRI and evaluating what went on then and
getting people’s opinion in terms of how things could have been done
better is good.
IRRI has an
excellent history and
recording it should be done because sometimes what one reads in
official reports doesn’t necessarily tell the true story. You
and your colleagues should be congratulated on making this effort to
pull together opinions, facts, and ideas from various people, and the
various aspects of IRRI’s development through the years. It’s great and
I thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to say a few words.
Return to
Rice Today Main Page
 
 
|
