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.
The expansion of do-it-yourself (DIY) gene editing, facilitated by Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology, has catalyzed a significant shift in scientific research and biotechnology innovation. This movement is propelled by a community-driven approach that challenges the traditional confines of scientific exploration, allowing amateur scientists to perform sophisticated biological experiments. While this democratization fosters inclusivity and accelerates innovation, it simultaneously introduces significant biosecurity risks. The possibility of unregulated gene editing leading to the unintentional creation of harmful organisms or the deliberate engineering of pathogens underscores the need for a new regulatory framework. This paper explores the implications of DIY biology within the context of public health, environmental safety, and biosecurity, highlighting the urgency for adaptive policies that balance scientific freedom with security. It proposes integrating community-driven regulatory practices with formal oversight mechanisms by examining biosecurity implications, ethical considerations, and the potential for misuse. Additionally, the role of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) is explored as a novel approach to transforming governance within the domain of DIY gene editing, particularly in the context of CRISPR research.
The use of genetic engineering is increasingly discussed for nature conservation. At the same time, recent animal ethics approaches debate whether humans should genetically engineer wild animals to improve their welfare. This paper examines if obligations towards wild sentient animals require humans to genetically engineering wild animals, while arguing that there is no moral need to do so. The focus is on arguments from animal ethics, but they are linked to conservation ethics, highlighting the often neglected overlap between the two fields. The paper emphasizes that a) the benefits of genetic engineering are overestimated and at the same time harms from its development and use underestimated, b) the assumption that genetic engineering is an appropriate ‘last resort’ tool is wrong, c) many arguments in favor of genetic engineering are based on an inadequate understanding of ecology and bio- technological processes, and d) the debate downplays the importance of self-determination for wild animals.
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.
This study aimed at determining the effects of technology adoption on farmers’ well-being. Specifically, we analysed and extended the current understanding of the topic by focusing on the concepts of technology adoption and well-being. Most papers indicated that technology adoption improved farmers’ well-being which was basically measured using productivity and income. The measure however lacked farmers’ value judgments, such as happiness. Agricultural technology could have a mixed effect on farmers’ well-being, depending on the type of technology adopted and the compatibility of farmers with technology in their agricultural practices.
