See:
Wow, I’d hate to try and compete with that.
This link has a video one can watch:
http://rdu.news14.com/content/story_links/?SecID=231&ArID=80533
Link: rdu.news14.com/content/story_links/?SecID=231&ArID=80533
A rose lasting from 14. february to the 2nd Sunday of May (Mother’s day) would be a great thing for ungenerous men, only if such a rose can be cheaper than a silk rose 
“A research team of six men and three women will spend the next three years developing the perfect rose”
This is not at all impressive.
How many scientific are working life long on roses?
A rough estimation is several dozens to one hundred for Europe only.
“The researchers will examine how roses are cut, shipped and handled and the water in which they are shipped in an effort to extend vase life from the current seven to 10 days to as long as three to four weeks”
Ah! It is the perfect florist red rose!
This flower has not such a lasting hability. The best holding ones with hard petals and flowers that never really open have a two weeks potential.
It sounds like a huge financial and personell committment at just one university. I’m excited for the work to be done because any advancement in understanding and progress with roses will be progress, even if I many of us are not involved in the cut rose industry. Information can hopefully be extracted and applied to our areas of interest. Yes, there are a number of genes that have been successfully inserted in roses, but they are not commercialized as far as I’m aware of. I agree with you Pierre that the blue rose objective has problems. Below is a table of difference genes and references roses have been transformed with. The table got a little jumbled as I pasted it in.
John Dole got his Ph.D. here at the U of MN where I am at now with retired Dr. Harold Wilkins. Harold is proud of him and all his/their accomplishments. Together in recent years they wrote a popular floriculture text book which has a nice chapter on rose production.
David
Objective Gene category Gene Reference
Black spot resistance
Chitinase Dohm et al., 2001
RCH10 Marchant et al., 1998a
My understanding is that genetic alteration of roses has been very fruitful lately. Suntory and Florigene have inserted blue pansy genes (among a cocktail of modifications including “silencers” and DFR from iris…) into a rose which is now considered the first “blue” rose. Of course, the pH of the rose results in a blue that is somewhat mauvey and not a huge improvement from the best mauves hybridized the old-fashioned way, nonetheless…
I’m not sure how much “progress” genetic alteration provides for those of us who hybridize roses. Though it does provide new stock for creating cultivars the old-fashioned way, the information may not be otherwise very much applicable to our areas of interest. I for one can’t custom design the genes of my crosses…
Im not sure I would want to given the chance. Im 100% I wouldnt want to.
I’m not sure how much “progress” genetic alteration provides for those of us who hybridize roses. Though it does provide new stock for creating cultivars the old-fashioned way, the information may not be otherwise very much applicable to our areas of interest.
I’m not sure that it doesn’t hurt us. Once the genes get
put in and that gene set is patented in the rose, we won’t
be allowed to produce commercial cultivars from that patented rose. (If I understand the ins and outs of
genetic/patent law from what I’ve read (I probaby don’t)).
Christopher, I don’t know anything about genetic patent laws, but that does make sense. After one makes the investment to insert a genetic modification into a species, it would need to be protected, and standard patent laws wouldn’t protect that investment… To be sure, they could and would be passed on to subsequent hybrids…
Of course, I’m not sure I like the idea of protecting such too much. It encourages a tad bit too much playing of God when financial protection is given to the fabrication of things mother nature never would have allowed…
Has anyone actually seen the product of Suntory/Florigene’s work?