We’ve scanned the web to bring together a library of interesting, thought-provoking articles, blogs, reports and academic papers that explore the issue of genetic engineering in food and farming from broader and deeper perspectives. Browse for inspiration or search by theme.

Robots in agriculture – A case-based discussion of ethical concerns on job loss, responsibility, and data control

Publication date: 01/12/2024
There is a growing interest in using robots in agriculture due to increasing challenges of labour scarcity and cost. Field robots are expected to help overcome these challenges and to contribute to financial, environmental and social sustainability. However, socially responsible introduction of field crop robots will require awareness and consideration of ethical trade-offs by stakeholders including farmers, regulators, and manufacturers. In this article we discuss the ethical themes of job loss, moral responsibility, and data control in light of the results of sixteen interviews with key stakeholders conducted in 2022 under a European research project named Robs4crops.
Resource type: article: Web Page

UN puts AI Titans on the hook for billions of dollars of biopiracy payments.

Publication date: 19/11/2024

A new UN decision says AI giants should pay out billions of dollars compensation for use of AI training data . A blog explaining the new ‘Cali Fund’ established at the recent Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to deal with Digital Sequence Information, and why its significant for tech giants.

Resource type: article: Web Page

The Gene Editing Business: Rent Extraction in the Biotech Industry

Publication date: 24/10/2024

This article analyses the mechanisms governing the extraction, circulation, and distribution of rent in the biotech industry. Building on recent scholarship, it contributes to debates surrounding the importance of rent in technoscientific capitalism. It analyses genome editing as a global labour process. It interrogates how CRISPR technologies cement and expand neocolonial geographies of rent extraction, privatising the economic benefits and socialising the ecological risks. It argues that an increasingly monopolistic corporate biopower mediates how genome editing technologies are developed, and which mutant ecologies are socially produced.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Predicted multispecies unintended effects from outdoor genome editing

Publication date: 01/09/2024

Our aim was to assess potential activity in organisms that could be exposed to genome editing in uncontrolled environments. We developed three scenarios, using irrigation, fumigation and fertilization as delivery methods, based on outdoor uses in agriculture, namely pest and disease control. Using publicly available software , off-target effects were predicted in multiple species commonly found in the agroecosystem, including humans (16 of 38 (42 %) sampled). Metabolic enrichment analysis (gene IDs), by connecting off-target genes into a physiological network, predicted effects on the development of nervous and respiratory systems. Our findings emphasize the importance of exercising caution when considering the use of this genome editing in uncontrolled environments. Unintended genomic alterations may occur in unintended organisms, underscoring the significance of understanding potential hazards and implementing safety measures to protect human health and the environment.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Socio-economic assessment and genetically engineered crops in Africa: Building knowledge for development?

Publication date: 01/09/2024

How could we know if agricultural development interventions make contributions to sustainable development goals (SDGs)? Genetically engineered (GE) crops are celebrated as a class of technological interventions that can realize multiple SDGs. But recent studies have revealed the gap between GE crop program goals and the approaches used to assess their impacts. Using four comprehensive reviews of GE crop socio-economic impacts, we identify common shortcomings across three themes: (a) scope, (b) approaches and (c) heterogeneity. We find that the evaluation sciences literature offers alternative assessment approaches that can enable evaluators to better assess impacts, and inform learning and decision-making. We recommend the use of methods that enable evaluations to look beyond the agronomic and productive effects of individual traits to understand wider socio-economic effects.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Responsible development of digital livestock technologies for agricultural challenges

Publication date: 28/08/2024

Digital livestock technologies (DLTs) are presented as solutions to grand challenges in post-Brexit British agricultural policy, such as climate change and food security. Evidence suggests technological solutions to agricultural challenges will be more effective with stakeholder and public engagement, yet there is little known about stakeholder views on these emerging technologies. We drew on responsible research and innovation, to analyse stakeholder perspectives on three case studies of DLT development through anticipatory focus groups with expert stakeholders in British animal agriculture. We found that stakeholders from broadly agroecological approaches to farming are at risk of exclusion from DLT development and policy, with negative implications for the ability of DLTs to resolve grand challenges in animal agriculture.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Democratization through precision technologies? Unveiling power, participation, and property rights in the agricultural bioeconomy

Publication date: 08/03/2024

This piece addresses the political dimension of sustainability in the agricultural bioeconomy by focusing on power, participation, and property rights around key technologies. Bioeconomy policies aim to establish economic systems based on renewable resources such as plants and microorganisms to reduce dependence on fossil resources. To achieve this, they rely on economic growth and increased biomass production through high-tech innovations. This direction has sparked important critique of the environmental and social sustainability of such projects. However, little attention has been paid in the bioeconomy literature to the political dimension surrounding key precision technologies such as data-driven precision agriculture (PA) or precision breeding technologies using new genomic techniques (NGT). The political dimension includes questions of power, participation, and property rights regarding these technologies and the distribution of the benefits and burdens they generate. This lack of attention is particularly pertinent given the recurring and promising claims that precision technologies not only enhance environmental sustainability, but also contribute to the democratization of food and biomass production. This contribution addresses this claim in asking whether we can really speak of a democratization of the agricultural bioeconomy through these precision technologies. Drawing on (own) empirical research and historical evidence, it concludes that current patterns are neither driving nor indicative of a democratization. On the contrary, corporate control, unequal access, distribution, and property rights over data and patents point to few gains for small firms and breeders, but to a reproduction of farmers’ dependencies, and less transparency for consumers.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?

Publication date: 07/02/2024
Organizations involved with gene editing may engage with the public to share information and address concerns about the technology. It is unclear, however, if the information shared aligns with what people want to know. We aimed to understand what members of the public want to know about gene editing in animals by soliciting their questions through an open-ended survey question and comparing them with questions posed in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) webpages developed by gene editing stakeholder organizations. Participants (338 USA residents) asked the most questions about gene editing in general and animal welfare. In contrast, FAQ webpages focused on regulations. The questions survey participants asked demonstrate a range of knowledge and interests. The discrepancy between survey participant questions and the information provided in the FAQ webpages suggests that gene editing stakeholders might engage in more meaningful public engagement by soliciting actual questions from the public and opening up opportunities for real dialogue.
Resource type: article: Web Page

The societal roles and responsibilities of plant scientists in the context of genome-edited crops

Publication date: 31/01/2024
The societal debate on the use of genome-edited crops has been polarised from the start. While policymakers struggle to democratically resolve this dilemma, plant scientists have been criticised for taking up advocative roles and thereby risking further polarisation. This study demonstrates how plant scientists themselves perceive their roles and responsibilities. Indeed, those scientists active in the debate were found to fulfil advocative roles, and there seems to be an underlying, persistent—and very traditional—view on roles and responsibilities of scientists within the community. Critical reflection on this view is required for better democratic dialogue and decision-making. More interdisciplinary interaction could facilitate this reflection.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Simulation of dual-purpose chicken breeding programs implementing gene editing

Publication date: 17/01/2024

The paper considered the possibility of using gene editing to accelerate progress towards dual purpose chickens, thus eliminating the need for male culling. Our simulation demonstrated a general increase in genetic gain when genomic selection is used together with GE. The overall benefit of GE erased after some generations because the large-effect alleles became fixed. Hence, GE could be beneficial only when alleles with reasonable effect sizes are segregating and detectable. When the consumer preference and the price difference between the genome-edited chicken and the other chickens were to be considered, the findings from this study might not be sufficient to recommend the use of GE in breeding programs for quantitative traits.”

Resource type: article: Web Page