The power of citizen science to contribute to both science and society is gaining increased recognition, particularly in physics and biology. Although there is a long history of public engagement in agriculture and food science, the term ‘citizen science’ has rarely been applied to these efforts. Similarly, in the emerging field of citizen science, most new citizen science projects do not focus on food or agriculture. Here, we convened thought leaders from a broad range of fields related to citizen science, agriculture, and food science to highlight key opportunities for bridging these overlapping yet disconnected communities/fields and identify ways to leverage their respective strengths. Specifically, we show that (i) citizen science projects are addressing many grand challenges facing our food systems, as outlined by the United States National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as broader Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations Development Programme, (ii) there exist emerging opportunities and unique challenges for citizen science in agriculture/food research, and (iii) the greatest opportunities for the development of citizen science projects in agriculture and food science will be gained by using the existing infrastructure and tools of Extension programmes and through the engagement of urban communities. Further, we argue there is no better time to foster greater collaboration between these fields given the trend of shrinking Extension programmes, the increasing need to apply innovative solutions to address rising demands on agricultural systems, and the exponential growth of the field of citizen science.

No abstract

We must ensure that trials are scientifically, politically, and socially robust, publicly accountable, and widely transparent

Gene drive development is progressing more rapidly than our understanding of public values toward these technologies. We analyze a statistically representative survey (n = 1018) of U.S. adult attitudes toward agricultural gene drives. When informed about potential risks, benefits, and two previously researched applications, respondents’ support/opposition depends heavily (+22%/−19%) on whether spread of drives can be limited, non-native versus native species are targeted (+12%/−9%), or the drive replaces versus suppresses target species (±2%). The one-fifth of respondents seeking out non–GMO–labeled food are more likely to oppose drives, although their support exceeds opposition for limited applications. Over 62% trust U.S. universities and the Department of Agriculture to research gene drives, with the private sector and Department of Defense viewed as more untrustworthy. Uncertain human health and ecological effects are the public’s most important concerns to resolve. These findings can inform responsible innovation in gene drive development and risk assessment.

Precaution can be consistent with support of science