Domestication, crop breeding, and genetic modification are fundamentally different processes: implications for seed sovereignty and agrobiodiversity

Mueller, Natalie G.; Flachs, Andrew

doi:10.1007/s10460-021-10265-3

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compounding the speed of development is the ability of the ‘engineer’, in Jacob’s sense, to breed large numbers of modified organisms and distribute them globally at unnatural rates unbuffered by stochastic events that lead to an organism’s failure to reproduce. Indeed, the ultimate purpose is to make products at relatively or absolutely large numbers under such protections as monopoly-building intellectual property rights ( NRC, 1989 ; Mueller and Flachs, 2022 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When risk is considered along the entire technological trajectory, it is possible to envision both different sources of hazard and exposure and different strategies for risk mitigation ( Pavone, Goven, and Guarino, 2011 ). The trajectory increases the level of analysis from the narrowly defined biological hazard to the potential to interfere with a high-level social goal ( Mueller and Flachs, 2022 ; Heinemann and Hiscox, 2022 ). Mitigation options also grow from being tweaks to the technology to whether it is even among the best available options ( Aga and Montenegro de Wit, 2021 ; EGE, 2021 ; Engelhard et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Technological Risk Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through genome editing and other techniques of gene technology, it is possible to create a class of organism called null segregants. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are products of gene technology but are argued to have no lingering vestige of the technology after the segregation of chromosomes or deletion of insertions. From that viewpoint regulations are redundant because any unique potential for the use of gene technology to cause harm has also been removed. We tackle this question of international interest by reviewing the early history of the purpose of gene technology regulation. The active ingredients of techniques used for guided mutagenesis, e.g., site-directed nucleases, such as CRISPR/Cas, are promoted for having a lower potential per reaction to create a hazard. However, others see this as a desirable industrial property of the reagents that will lead to genome editing being used more and nullifying the promised hazard mitigation. The contest between views revolves around whether regulations could alter the risks in the responsible use of gene technology. We conclude that gene technology, even when used to make null segregants, has characteristics that make regulation a reasonable option for mitigating potential harm. Those characteristics are that it allows people to create more harm faster, even if it creates benefits as well; the potential for harm increases with increased use of the technique, but safety does not; and regulations can control harm scaling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technological Risk Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the purposes of this analysis, we define complexification as any strategy for problem-solving that requires greater specialization of social roles and institutional hierarchies, greater technical competencies, larger scales of integration, increased use of energy, and increased production and flow of information (Flannery, 1972;Tainter, 1995Tainter, , 2006Strumsky et al, 2010). By this definition, GM technology, for example, is more complex than traditional breeding because it involves laboratories, advanced technologies, specialized academic knowledge, and introduces more complicated corporate hierarchies and intellectual property considerations into the supply chain (Mueller and Flachs, 2021). It is important to note for the purposes of disambiguation that the definitions of complexity and complexification used here are different from those found in other disciplines, such as algebra or complex systems theory.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators of Complexity and Over-Complexification in Global Food Systems

Loring

Sanyal

2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global food systems have increased in complexity significantly since the mid-twentieth century, through such innovations as mechanization, irrigation, genetic modification, and the globalization of supply chains. While complexification can be an effective problem-solving strategy, over-complexification can cause environmental degradation and lead systems to become increasingly dependent on external subsidies and vulnerable to collapse. Here, we explore a wide array of evidence of complexification and over-complexification in contemporary global food systems, drawing on data from the Food and Agriculture Organization and elsewhere. We find that food systems in developed, emerging, and least developed countries have all followed a trajectory of complexification, but that return on investments for energy and other food system inputs have significantly declined—a key indicator of over-complexification. Food systems in developed countries are further along in the process of over-complexification than least developed and emerging countries. Recent agricultural developments, specifically the introduction of genetically modified crops, have not altered this trend or improved return on investments for inputs into food systems. Similarly, emerging innovations belonging to the “digital agricultural revolution” are likewise accompanied by energy demands that may further exacerbate over-complexification. To reverse over-complexification, we discuss strategies including innovation by subtraction, agroecology, and disruptive technology.

show abstract

“…So, this divergence can easily lead to opposition because stakeholders with objections or alternative views on crop breeding and agricultural systems feel being ignored. The problem with agricultural biotechnology therefore is therefore rather sociopolitical than biological in nature (Mueller & Flachs 2021 ). Thus, besides being careful not to indulge unfounded scientific claims (Stirling 2010 ; Pielke 2007 ), participants contributions should also be based on valid ethical and societal arguments (Antonsen & Dassler 2021 ; Binimelis & Myhr 2016 ).…”

Section: The Current European Commission Consultation Round On New Ge...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

End of April 2021, the European Commission published its study on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). The study involved a consultation of Member States and stakeholders. This study reveals a split on whether current legislation should be maintained or adapted to take account of scientific progress and the risk level of NGT products. This split was predictable. New technological developments challenge both ethical viewpoints and regulatory institutions; and contribute to the growing divide between science and society that value ‘technological innovations’ differently. Such controversies are often characterized as ‘unstructured’ because of nearly unbridgeable positions on entangled scientific and value-laden issues. Initiatives for stakeholder involvement, such as consultation or participation, often focus on reaching a ‘shared vision’ without exploring the diverse societal concerns and values behind these positions. To resolve the EU stalemate in NGT regulation, we advocate to bring back politics in the EU decision-making process instead of hiding it under the veil of science, the need for regulatory change and public support. A more productive and justified use of genuine stakeholder participation is possible, if participants and deliberation design meet the criteria of what we call participation ethics. Drawing from our applied experience exploring the ethics of genetic modification, we believe that this approach can lead to more robust political decision-making and restore societal confidence in the governance of contested issues such as NGTs.

show abstract

Domestication, crop breeding, and genetic modification are fundamentally different processes: implications for seed sovereignty and agrobiodiversity

Cited by 19 publications

References 111 publications

Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?

Indicators of Complexity and Over-Complexification in Global Food Systems

Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About