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.
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.
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.
Society should be asking itself why it needs to trade the security of its regulations for unsecured promises from the visions of genetic engineers, argues molecular biologist Jack Heinemann.
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.
Transgenic, dicamba-resistant soybean and cotton were developed to enable farmers to combat weeds that had evolved resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. The dramatic increases in dicamba use these crops facilitated have led to serious problems, including the evolution of dicamba-resistant weeds and widespread damage to susceptible crops and farming communities. Disturbingly, this pattern of dicamba use has unfolded while the total herbicide applied to soybean has nearly doubled since 2006. Without substantive changes to agricultural policy and decision making, the next ‘silver-bullet’ agrotechnology will likely be no more than another step on the transgene-facilitated herbicide treadmill.
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.
