Should Gene Editing Be Used to Develop Crops for Continuous-Living-Cover Agriculture? A Multi-Sector Stakeholder Assessment Using a Cooperative Governance Approach.

agricultural diversification cover crops gene editing governance multi-stakeholder

Journal

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 24 12 2021
accepted: 20 01 2022
entrez: 14 3 2022
pubmed: 15 3 2022
medline: 15 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Continuous-living-cover (CLC) agriculture integrates multiple crops to create diversified agroecosystems in which soils are covered by living plants across time and space continuously. CLC agriculture can greatly improve production of many different ecosystem services from agroecosystems, including climate adaptation and mitigation. To go to scale, CLC agriculture requires crops that not only provide continuous living cover but are viable in economic and social terms. At present, lack of such viable crops is strongly limiting the scaling of CLC agriculture. Gene editing (GE) might provide a powerful tool for developing the crops needed to expand CLC agriculture to scale. To assess this possibility, a broad multi-sector deliberative group considered the merits of GE-relative to alternative plant-breeding methods-as means for improving crops for CLC agriculture. The group included many of the sectors whose support is necessary to scaling agricultural innovations, including actors involved in markets, finance, policy, and R&D. In this article, we report findings from interviews and deliberative workshops. Many in the group were enthusiastic about prospects for applications of GE to develop crops for CLC agriculture, relative to alternative plant-breeding options. However, the group noted many issues, risks, and contingencies, all of which are likely to require responsive and adaptive management. Conversely, if these issues, risks, and contingencies cannot be managed, it appears unlikely that a strong multi-sector base of support can be sustained for such applications, limiting their scaling. Emerging methods for responsible innovation and scaling have potential to manage these issues, risks, and contingencies; we propose that outcomes from GE crops for CLC agriculture are likely to be much improved if these emerging methods are used to govern such projects. However, both GE of CLC crops and responsible innovation and scaling are unrefined innovations. Therefore, we suggest that the best pathway for exploring GE of CLC crops is to intentionally couple implementation and refinement of both kinds of innovations. More broadly, we argue that such pilot projects are urgently needed to navigate intensifying grand challenges around food and agriculture, which are likely to create intense pressures to develop genetically-engineered agricultural products and equally intense social conflict.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35284407
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.843093
pii: 843093
pmc: PMC8914063
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

843093

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Jordan, Kuzma, Ray, Foot, Snider, Miller, Wilensky-Lanford and Amarteifio.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Authors KM and EW-L were employed by the company Terraluna Collaborative. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Science. 2020 Nov 20;370(6519):916-918
pubmed: 33214269
Nat Biotechnol. 2007 May;25(5):509-11
pubmed: 17483830
Public Underst Sci. 2019 May;28(4):449-467
pubmed: 30764719
Nat Biotechnol. 2017 Apr 11;35(4):302-304
pubmed: 28398318
GM Crops Food. 2019;10(1):44-62
pubmed: 31070105
Ecol Appl. 2018 Jan;28(1):249-261
pubmed: 29112790
Risk Anal. 2012 Aug;32(8):1394-403
pubmed: 22150405
EMBO Rep. 2017 Oct;18(10):1683-1687
pubmed: 28928139
Science. 2018 Nov 2;362(6414):527-529
pubmed: 30385564
Nat Plants. 2018 Oct;4(10):766-770
pubmed: 30287957
Nature. 2016 Mar 10;531(7593):165-7
pubmed: 26961641
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492
pubmed: 30660336
Nat Biotechnol. 2021 Sep;39(9):1055-1057
pubmed: 34381209
CRISPR J. 2018 Apr;1:128-129
pubmed: 31021207
Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Jun;18(2):135-143
pubmed: 28470752
Agric Syst. 2020 Sep;184:102901
pubmed: 32834403
Sci Adv. 2020 Nov 4;6(45):
pubmed: 33148637
Science. 1987 Apr 17;236(4799):280-5
pubmed: 3563507
Nature. 2018 Mar 22;555(7697):435-437
pubmed: 29565415
Commun Biol. 2020 Jun 11;3(1):300
pubmed: 32528188
Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Oct 11;34(10):1025-1031
pubmed: 27727218
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 17;114(42):11247-11252
pubmed: 28973922

Auteurs

Nicholas R Jordan (NR)

Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.

Jennifer Kuzma (J)

School of Public and International Affairs, Genetic Engineering and Society Center, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.

Deepak K Ray (DK)

Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.

Kirsten Foot (K)

Department of Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Madison Snider (M)

Department of Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Keith Miller (K)

Terraluna Collaborative, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Ethan Wilensky-Lanford (E)

Terraluna Collaborative, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Gifty Amarteifio (G)

Department of Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Classifications MeSH