Luis Ventura | January 19, 2021
In the span of a few short years, gene editing has allowed scientists to begin rapidly and cheaply improving food production in ways that benefit farmers and consumers. Examples range from heart-healthy soybeans to chemical-free pesticide alternatives, and many more powerful applications have already been approved by regulators. Such important developments are poised to continue provided technophobic consumers and politicians can be convinced that CRISPR and other gene-editing tools ought to be regulated with a light touch.
With this in mind, many science advocates has resorted to defending the safety and efficacy of gene editing by distinguishing it from older transgenic (GM) genetic modification technology, which often involves transferring DNA between unrelated organisms and invites charges that scientists are “playing god” and breeding “Frankenfoods.” The logic is that gene editing can be spared the PR nightmare GMOs endured if the public can be convinced that the former is more natural—“it’s just plant breeding but much faster”—than the latter.
This is a well-meaning but ultimately misguided approach to advancing gene editing. The truth is that both GM and gene-editing technology have important roles to play in our efforts to make farming more sustainable. Promoting CRISPR at the expense of GM makes this sustainability goal harder to achieve and further solidifies the public’s unjustified fear of genetic engineering (GE) more generally...................
To Read More......
No comments:
Post a Comment