Will the traditional horticultural breeding and genetics research be fairly valued in academia?

Abstract

I wrote the inaugural Editorial when Horticulture Research was launched in January 2014. This second Editorial was trigged by the manuscript that was submitted to Horticulture Research (HORTRES.2015.49, www.nature.com/articles/hortres201549), a summary of 17 years of traditional genetics on a woody ornamental tree called redbud. I have always been fascinated by the wealth of unique ornamental trees, mostly caused by genetic mutations. Since the redbud and dogwood are the two signature ornamental trees in eastern Tennessee, where University of Tennessee locates, I called Dr Dennis Werner and asked him to write a story behind this research and how he could continue and sustain this research for 17 years. In his story (see below), I see several important questions that are in need of open discussions. Over the past 25 years as a faculty in land-grant universities in the United States, I have seen eliminations or switching from the traditional breeding and genetics research programs to biotechnology, molecular biology and genomics, and alike. University administrators are shifting funds and changing evaluation matrixes, and have been placing more emphasis on publications, grants, and high impact factor journal articles. During the six years of my joint appointment at Nanjing Agricultural University, China, I have been struck by the “typhoon” of publishing high impact factor journal articles and changing evaluation matrix that swept through the Chinese research institutions. I have contacted many faculty members in the United States and China, and asked the following questions: “Will the traditional breeding and genetics (or similar programs) be fairly valued in academia, especially in land grant, or similar mission-oriented universities where horticultural research is primarily conducted?” “In the current academic environment, how can young scientists set long-term research goals without worrying about short-term pressures of publishing?” “How do we evaluate high impact research and does it equal to high impact factor journal articles?” As the Editor-in-Chief, I accepted Dr Werner’s article, which has taken 17 years to collect and aggregate the data, in Horticulture Research, to offer my view and support on this solid, traditional genetics research. I invite and encourage faculty and administrators to openly discuss these questions which may greatly impact research and service we perform to the horticultural science, horticultural industry, and ultimately our life in general.