From polarized perspectives about Genome Editing towards an honest dialogue and better outcome for all
Can genome editing help our European farmers to adapt to climate change when increasing temperatures are particularly impacting crops in southern Europe as climate zones move north ? A new, must-read Allea report on genome editing discusses the impact of the EU court ruling on present research and developments in plant breeding.
©Adobe Stock, by Panumas
Polarization in the United States and around the world is on the rise. We agree on fewer and fewer issues, resulting in fewer compromises and everlasting conflicts. However, when diverse biases and perspectives are brought to the table, it will enable individuals to search a wider space of solutions to specific problems. And since strong bias is often driven by passion, strong minded people (i.e. the ones we call “biased” when they are not around) work longer and harder for something they believe in. HBR research has shown that teams with mixtures of perspectives and biases that are willing to engage and collaborate, can actually yield superior performance.
A nice example is this creative process where people with different biases debated passionately towards a positive outcome, has been presented in this recent Allea* report about “Genome Editing for Crop Improvement”.
Since the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU of 2018, which placed genome-edited crops under the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) legislation, several European scientists, breeders, law and policy makers have creatively explored paths to harmonise EU legislation while particularly considering relevant ethical and societal considerations.
Here are key takeaways :
· European legislation should follow the features of the plant, rather than the technique used to generate it, to determine its regulatory status.
· Targeted genome edits, which do not add foreign DNA, do not present any other health or environmental danger than plants obtained through classical breeding techniques, and are as safe or dangerous as the latter.
· Continued legislative and policy restrictions may hamper the selection of more productive, diverse, and climate-resilient crops with a reduced environmental footprint.
· The length and cost of the authorisation process makes it, except for major industrial players, hardly possible to bring into culture and commercialise plants developed with new biotechnological breeding techniques.
· To enhance sustainability and to reduce the usage of chemicals, access is needed to the most advanced technologies enabling the improvement of existing varietal heritage and increasing the ability to respond to new challenges of changing environments.
· An open, honest dialogue with all stakeholders, including the public, is needed in the decision-making processes for introducing genome-edited products into the market, ensuring that the implications of market introduction are accurately communicated.
This report is well written, makes clear points and presents practical solutions to deal with some of the current challenges we are facing. It is an important step in the right direction. Genome editing together with other technologies in agronomy, breeding, Integrated Pest Management and novel biological control systems can contribute to our ambitious “Farm to Fork strategy” and sustainably reduce our environmental footprint in agriculture.
*ALLEA is the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, representing more than 50 academies from over 40 EU and non-EU countries.
https://hbr.org/2019/07/are-politically-diverse-teams-more-effective
https://allea.org/academies-report-reviews-debate-on-genome-editing-for-crop-improvement/
Dima, O.; Bocken H.; Custers, R.; Inze, D.; Puigdomenech, P.; Genome Editing for Crop Improvement. Symposium summary. Berlin. DOI: 10.26356/gen-editing-crop
