tag:theconversation.com,2011:/institutions/earlham-institute-2945/articlesEarlham Institute2021-08-11T12:27:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1629592021-08-11T12:27:19Z2021-08-11T12:27:19ZShould we genetically edit the food we eat? We asked two experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/409664/original/file-20210705-19-kw8reu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pile-pumpkins-on-bale-straw-under-156566732">Michael Wick/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>Nicola Patron</strong>: Oil from soybeans gene-edited to produce a <a href="https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/918560/calyxt-debuts-premium-soybean-cooking-oil-calyno-918560.html">“high oleic” oil</a> with no trans fats and less saturated fat is already on sale in the United States. Other products including <a href="https://www.cellectis.com/en/press/cellectis-plant-sciences-inc.-publishes-a-study-demonstrating-reduced-acrylamide-in-fried-potatoes">low-acrylamide potatoes</a> and <a href="http://pgandp.org/page475645.html">non-browning mushrooms</a> are expected to be launched in the near future. </p>
<p>The work I do might lead to similar products. I’m a molecular and synthetic plant biologist at the <a href="https://www.earlham.ac.uk">Earlham Institute</a>. My lab works to understand how plants control when and why genes are expressed as well as how they make certain chemicals. We aim to identify variants of genes that help plants to grow and to find and produce natural products like pheromones that are useful in agriculture or anti-cancer compounds used in chemotherapies. We also work to improve plant biotechnologies and have contributed to proof-of-concept studies demonstrating that genome editing can be used to develop useful traits in <a href="https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0826-7">barley, brassica</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.13137">potatoes</a> by deleting just a few letters of DNA.</p>
<p><strong>Catherine Price</strong>: It’s great to be able to talk to a scientist working in this field, because GM crops have long been a very contentious issue, and for good reason. My work focuses on the social science aspects of the GM debate. I’m a sociologist based at a <a href="https://research.reading.ac.uk/change-in-agriculture/">research group</a> at the University of Reading looking at the future of agriculture. In <a href="http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/133445/">previous work</a> I’ve examined how GM food is discussed by the media, so I have a good sense of how the state, NGOs, farmers, and citizens all view the science of GM foods – and it varies quite a bit. </p>
<p>So what exactly is the difference between GM and gene editing? I’ve come across many definitions in my time working on this topic.</p>
<p><strong>NP</strong>: I’m not surprised! There isn’t really an accepted definition of what genetic modification is, and that has certainly caused some problems. One could argue that the genetics of anything that’s been manipulated by humans has been modified in some way. We’ve been changing plant genomes for thousands of years. The process of domesticating and breeding crops made substantial changes to the sequences and structures of their genomes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Medieval calendar showing monthly agricultural tasks." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408868/original/file-20210629-26-1ysaca.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Agricultural calendar, c. 1306. As long as humanity has been farming, we’ve been altering the genetic make-up of crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crescenzi_calendar.jpg">Condé Museum</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the 1980s, we’ve had the ability to use recombinant DNA technologies to insert DNA sequences into plant genomes in order to confer useful traits, such as resistance to insect pests. This could be a DNA sequence from a different individual of the same species, from a closely related species, or from a more distantly related species. Such crops became known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They first came on to the markets in the 1990s and are now widely grown on about <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/what-gm-crops-are-currently-being-grown-and-where/">10%</a> of agricultural land worldwide in <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/55/">29 countries</a>.</p>
<p>The outcomes of gene editing are quite different to those of GM. What genome editing technologies allow you to do is to make really precise changes to the DNA that already exists in an organism. You can delete something, even changing or deleting just one specific letter of the DNA code, or you can recode a longer section of a sequence. You can also use these technologies to insert DNA, but instead of inserting the new DNA randomly as happens with older GM technologies, you can insert it into a specific location in the genome.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415651/original/file-20210811-17-zc3x6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>This is a Head to Head story</em></strong></p>
<p><br><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/head-to-head-62019">Head to Head</a> articles feature academics from different disciplines chewing over current debates. If there’s a specific topic or question you’d like experts from different disciplines to discuss, please <a href="mailto:insights@theconversation.com">email us your question</a>.</em> </p>
<hr>
<p>Broadly, genetic modification has come to mean that one or more genes have been inserted whereas genome editing has come to mean small and specific changes to existing DNA.</p>
<h2>‘Frankenfood’</h2>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> You’ve just explained the science really clearly. And I think that might be what we’re missing in terms of the public debate – where often the loudest sentiment is that these technologies are unnatural or dangerous.</p>
<p>In previous work I’ve <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Catherine-Price-9/publication/310456988_Genetic_Futures_and_the_Media/links/5bb5f430299bf13e605e29db/Genetic-Futures-and-the-Media.pdf">analysed</a> how journalists frame genetics news. Journalists often liken the rearrangement and changes to genes to Frankenstein and the idea of runaway science. This is turn can invoke the idea that scientific progress interferes with nature, producing results which are unpredictable and ethically wrong.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="White mushrooms on wooden background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408882/original/file-20210629-20-17w90x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The common white button mushroom was genetically modified with the gene-editing tool CRISPR–Cas9 to resist browning. It was the first such organism to receive a green light from the US government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fresh-mushrooms-on-wooden-background-82617856">Valerii Evlakhov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2015, for example, these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1191/14744744004eu301oa">Frankenfood headlines</a> dominated. There were a lot of people who were for it too, but I got the overall sense that it was deemed a risk and that part of the problem was that scientists didn’t try hard enough to explain the technical stuff and the risks, and that the public’s concerns weren’t being listened to. I think sometimes we treat the public as being stupid. If the science isn’t explained and the public aren’t consulted, what are they supposed to think?</p>
<p>In the UK, the gene-editing debate has sparked again. When Boris Johnson came into power, he stood on the steps of Downing Street <a href="https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/boris-johnsons-message-business-satellites-16640138">and said</a> he wanted to enable gene edited and genetically modified crops. This led to a <a href="https://consult.defra.gov.uk/agri-food-chain-directorate/the-regulation-of-genetic-technologies/">government consultation</a> on the matter. The proposed changes – yet to be announced formally – <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-gmo-crops">define gene-edited organisms</a> as those “possessing genetic changes which could have been introduced by traditional breeding”. </p>
<p>But has the dominant view changed since 2015? It’s not clear. There are also concerns that weakened regulations will lock the UK into <a href="https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/uk-gene-editing-consultation-say-no-to-deregulation/">industrialised farming methods</a>. And there’s no real sense of how gene edited or GM crops fit into the broader food system. Agriculture does not operate and exist in isolation.</p>
<p><strong>NP:</strong> I totally agree that there was insufficient communication in the past. People do understand the science if it is explained in a considered way. One thing I have found is that it’s important for people to understand that <em>all</em> crop breeding techniques involve rearrangements and changes to genes. The risks of using these new breeding technologies are no greater than for older breeding technologies, the products of which are subject to far fewer checks. For the most part, what domestication and plant breeding <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/06/13/732160949/how-almonds-went-from-deadly-to-delicious">has achieved</a> is to <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6445/1095">remove toxins</a> and to make them more <a href="https://academic.oup.com/plcell/article/23/5/tpc.111.tt0511/6097094">nutritious and more high yielding</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"734662715826962432"}"></div></p>
<p>In the summer of 2018, the European court of justice <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05814-6">ruled</a> that genome edited plants would also be classified as being genetically modified. But, if a plant was mutated using radiation or mutagenic chemicals, even if the results were exactly the same (or had even more changes), the plant would not be GM. To many, this <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4252">doesn’t make much sense</a>. When there are no new genes inserted, I struggle to understand how and why plants mutated with these technologies should be regulated in a different way. That’s why <a href="https://www.mpg.de/13748566/position-paper-crispr.pdf">European law in this area is controversial</a>.</p>
<p>Now with the UK being able to divert from European law post-Brexit, there is a discussion of whether that’s something that the country wants to keep. This is particularly relevant if the UK wants its agricultural products <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-leaving-eu-will-give-freedom-to-grow-more-gm-crops-2fbdwl5b6">to be competitive</a> on the wider global market with products from the United States and Canada and Brazil and Australia, who have decided <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.586027/full">not to regulate</a> genome edited products in the same way that they do genetically modified products.</p>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> It’s the rearrangements and changes to genes which the media often pick up on. And this is where the idea of Frankenstein food gets brought into debates about GM foods. I think this illustrates why scientists need to communicate the risks rather than leaving it to journalists. The public are likely to have a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154">better understanding</a> then. </p>
<h2>The case for editing</h2>
<p><strong>NP:</strong> Genetic rearrangements and changes to the sequences of genes occur naturally <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/31626-research-reveals-rapid-mutation-rate-of-plant-genomes">all the time</a>. They also occur with <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-55675-6_9">older and established breeding technologies</a>. Applying genetic technologies to crop breeding makes the process of bringing combinations of beneficial sequences and genes together into the same plant easier. Because scientists know what changes are being made, the consequences of these changes are closely observed and extensively analysed even before the plants enter large-scale breeding programmes. The outcomes of gene editing are therefore more likely to be predictable.</p>
<p>I think what is critically important is for scientists to explain what we’re trying to achieve and the type of products we’re able to make – why they will be beneficial, both to health and the environment. </p>
<p>We’re using an <a href="http://www.fao.org/land-water/news-archive/news-detail/en/c/267297/">incredible amount</a> of <a href="http://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/">land</a> and <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture">water</a> for agriculture. And that often means that we are destroying pristine biodiverse environments, such as the Amazon rainforest, grasslands, wetlands and marshlands to grow more crops. Increasing yield on productive land and decreasing the amount of land used for agriculture is possibly the greatest impact that we will have on preserving biodiversity. Improving crop genetics can also reduce the amount of fertilisers and pesticides that we need to use, and we can make crops healthier, and increase their nutritional content.</p>
<p>A single change to one letter of DNA sequence can turn off a gene and have a substantial effect. For example, making a single mutation to inactivate two genes involved in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennysplitter/2019/03/05/trans-fat-free-gene-edited-soybean-oil/?sh=27652c5f4c91">fatty acid biosynthesis</a> can lead to a different oil profile in oil seed crops making them healthier to consume. Plants also have genes that make them resistant or susceptible to specific diseases – a mutation in the coding sequence or in the regulatory sequences of these genes can mean that those pathogens <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12677">can no longer infect them</a>, which can reduce the need for fungicides and other chemicals.</p>
<p>Scientific analyses that have been done on the impacts of many biotech crops have <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajae.12162">identified many benefits</a>, including reducing the use of pesticides and improving the welfare and health of subsistence farmers.</p>
<p>I think it’s really important that people understand that even when the goal is to increase yields, crop improvement is not only about profit. </p>
<h2>Power in the seed system</h2>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> I’d certainly agree with you that these are very pressing issues and that the technology has the potential to do a lot of good, especially considering climate change and biodiversity loss. But what you say about profit can’t really be ignored. The dominance of the big companies is a big problem. I think that’s what’s underlying the issues now actually. People are asking: <a href="http://seedcontrol.eu/seed-stories.php">who’s got power in the seed system</a>? Who’s controlling our food system? What was the big six is now the <a href="https://european-seed.com/2019/02/from-big-six-to-big-four-new-oecd-study-sheds-light-on-concentration-and-competition-in-seed-markets/">big four</a> after a series of mergers (DowDuPont, Bayer-Monsanto, BASF and ChemChina-Syngenta); they’re controlling like <a href="https://civileats.com/2019/01/11/the-sobering-details-behind-the-latest-seed-monopoly-chart/">60%</a> of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-gardeners-are-reclaiming-agriculture-from-industry-one-seed-at-a-time-128071">seed supply</a>, you know?</p>
<p>Yes, these companies do invest huge amounts of capital and time developing innovations such as gene-edited crops. So of course they protect these innovations through patents and intellectual property rights. But for many farmers in developing countries, these patents dispossess them of their rights to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents">save seeds</a>. Instead of saving seed and planting it the following year, farmers have to purchase new seed. This is arguably linked to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5427059/">horrific stories</a> in some parts of the world – such as farmers accumulating so much debt that they take their own lives. There’s also the question of whether it is ethically correct for companies to own life. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A hand cupping seeds; seed packets in background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408886/original/file-20210629-24-lcn6gi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The traditional practice of seed saving is illegal under the terms of many seed companies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/united-kingdom-january-25-2012-woman-196672658">Caron Badkin/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>NP:</strong> I agree that ownership of the technologies underlying food production should be questioned and openly debated. I have <a href="https://www.synbioleap.org/strategic-action-plans-blog/2017/2/27/feeding-the-future-the-case-for-open-source-technology-and-an-inclusive-plant-bioengineering-community">previously written</a> about the negative consequences of some of the patenting and ownership practices used in plant biotechnology. However, while a few companies may sell the majority of proprietary seeds, their dominance over global food supply chains is overstated. Smallholder farmers, who generally do not grow proprietary seeds, <a href="https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32345.html">produce more than half of global food</a>. </p>
<p>One of the issues that often comes up as a concern is that <a href="http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/Biotech_for_Sustain_pages/Herbicide_Tolerance/">specific herbicides must be used</a> in conjunction with herbicide-tolerant GM plants. Until the patents of these herbicides <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/07/30/166919/as-patents-expire-farmers-plant-generic-gmos/">expire</a>, growers need to purchase both seeds and herbicides from the same company. Further, some of these crops are developed by chemical companies with a problematic history including the use of damaging chemicals such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/24/monsanto-agent-orange-west-virginia">Agent Orange</a>. It’s undoubtedly tricky asking people to trust seed produced by these companies.</p>
<p>Bad behaviour and poor corporate responsibility by companies should unquestionably be called out, curtailed and, where necessary, regulated. But seeking to counter the behaviour of a few companies by suppressing the use of technologies with enormous potential that are being used in public development programmes to <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/47/download/isaaa-brief-47-2014.pdf">improve lives</a> does not seem reasonable to me. I argue that we should instead confront questions of ownership, and facilitate global access to enabling technologies to promote locally-led solutions. </p>
<h2>What do most people think?</h2>
<p><strong>CP:</strong> That is certainly where lots of the push back comes from. I think even the smaller companies that are developing are always going to be associated with that. And yes, it’s time we debated that – the food system and the money seems to be a lot of the problem, not the science itself. </p>
<p>Having said that, I don’t think the reason gene editing crops are important is coming through at the moment. I agree that these crops are important for biodiversity and the need to produce more food on less land with less water. But sometimes there’s a sense that these things are being forced on people. </p>
<p>Mexicans actually <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/511016a">pushed back on GM maize</a> because maize is so culturally important to them. Soon after GM maize was introduced, in the late 1990s, they <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/35107068">found genetic sequences</a> known to be present in the GM varieties in a few samples of crops raised from local varieties. There was a sense then of an imposition or attack on their culture. And as a result of the aftermath of that debate Mexico actually ruled out GM maize in order to protect its maize breeding programmes, although it did continue to grow GM cotton.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man holds stack of different coloured corn on the cob." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408888/original/file-20210629-26-1sok1k4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mexico has an extraordinary diversity of maize – which was felt to be under threat from GM maize.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mexican-corn-maize-dried-blue-cobs-1479684842">Marcos Castillo/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That shows that sometimes we need to work with people more. We need to explain the science and the benefits and ask what they think, rather than framing it in a way that makes it seem like it’s inevitable. Yes, the possible benefits are enormous, but the people who are deciding which benefits are chosen and how, are often governments and corporations rather than farmers and the local people. And that’s a problem. The UK government, for example, often focuses on <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293037/10-669-gcsa-guidelines-scientific-engineering-advice-policy-making.pdf">scientific advice</a> in policy-making but I don’t think that’s the right route to go down. You need a wider debate sometimes as to what society wants, especially considering just how powerful these big companies are in the food system.</p>
<p>The recent consultation is an example of this. There was a sense that the government had <a href="https://www.foodethicscouncil.org/resource/open-letter-re-weakening-regulation-on-genetic-engineering/">already decided</a> that gene editing is going to happen, both on plants and animals. The consultation was made quite technical – too technical for people without a scientific understanding to contribute to. A lot of important questions – such as whether people consider gene editing to be ethical or who they believe will benefit from these technologies – just weren’t asked.</p>
<p>It’s not always about science. A lot of people are actually quite accepting of the science, as we’ve discussed – the problem is who is controlling the food system.</p>
<p><strong>NP</strong>: I share people’s concerns about the lack of diversity in the seed trading companies. Perhaps ironically, I think that one of the reasons that there are so few agrotech companies is partly a result of the regulatory burdens around GM. It has been estimated to cost upwards of <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=14638">a hundred million dollars</a> to bring a GM crop to market, with a substantial fraction spent on the regulatory process,</p>
<p>There was considerable diversity in the plant biotechnology IP [intellectual property] landscape, with quite a lot of it owned by universities. However, it has been argued that the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3393">strategic use of patent rights</a> and the implementation of high and scientifically unjustified <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76797108.pdf">regulatory barriers</a> stifled innovation in smaller companies leaving only very large companies with the resources necessary to bring products to market. In recent years, with new patent and regulatory landscapes of genome editing, we see new plant biotech companies <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-019-00027-2">beginning to emerge</a>.</p>
<p>One of the things I’ve been involved in is enabling <a href="https://www.openplant.org">open-source plant biotechnology</a> and accelerating technology transfer with the aim of enabling entrepreneurship and empowering scientists in resource poor regions. The long-term goal is to help scientists who are closely connected to the needs of their local farmers and populations obtain access to the training and technologies they need to start local companies, develop local crop varieties, and help democratise the seed production system.</p>
<p><strong>CP</strong>: I would agree. There’s a lot of government money being pushed into science the technology. But I think the way the government carried out the recent consultation – that sense of asking what people wanted, but not actually wanting to know the answer – might set the debate back a bit, at least in the UK. I think if the consultation had been done a bit differently, you might’ve got a better conversation going.</p>
<p>They might, for example, have involved a <a href="https://esrc.ukri.org/public-engagement/public-engagement-guidance/guide-to-public-engagement/choosing-your-activities/citizens-jury/">citizen jury</a> or similar. This is such an important topic, and it’s key that the public feel consulted. Then people could ask an expert – someone like you – what about this? What about that? Then the government would also have more of an understanding of the nature of public concerns and interest – and realise perhaps that they relate predominantly to the business or social side of things, rather than purely the science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162959/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicola Patron receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Price receives funding from the British Academy. </span></em></p>Catherine Price, sociologist, and Nicola Patron, synthetic plant biologist, discuss the promises, dangers and concerns around gene edited and GM crops.Nicola Patron, Synthetic Biology Group Leader, Earlham InstituteCatherine Price, Postdoctoral Researcher, Change in Agriculture, University of ReadingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1216952019-08-12T19:55:46Z2019-08-12T19:55:46ZPeace with nature: helping former Colombian guerrilla fighters to become citizen scientists<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287470/original/file-20190809-144878-1c8a5mp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ex-combatants learned to survey birds, plants and other wildlife.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jaime Gongora</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Colombia is the second most biodiverse country in the world with more than 56,000 recorded species, some 9,000 of which are unique. However protecting and researching this natural treasure has been extraordinarily difficult during Colombia’s nearly 55 years of internal conflict.</p>
<p>Since the 2016 peace agreement 21 scientific <a href="https://www.colciencias.gov.co/portafolio/colombia-bio">bio-expeditions</a> have been carried out, most in areas that were previously conflict zones. This has led to the discovery of more than 150 new animal and plant species. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ecotourism-could-be-making-animals-less-scared-and-easier-to-eat-49196">Ecotourism could be making animals less scared, and easier to eat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This flowering of research offers a new opportunity to the thousands of ex-combatants now looking for productive and peaceful work. We worked with former guerrillas in our project <a href="http://www.earlham.ac.uk/growing-research-capability-colombia">GROW-Colombia</a> to train them to protect Colombia’s biodiversity.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287471/original/file-20190809-144878-hyvmd8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jaime Gongora led workshops with former guerrillas on the promise of biodiversity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mario Murcia</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who are the ex-combatants?</h2>
<p>A huge effort to reincorporate these combatants back into civilian life is under way. Paramount is finding suitable jobs, to rebuild the country and offer stable wages.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.reincorporacion.gov.co/es">recent census</a> found the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (the FARC-EP) consists of some 10,000 people. Ranging between their 20s and 40s, around three-quarters are men. </p>
<p>Around 40% of these ex-guerrillas have experience in environmental conservation, and 70% have agricultural skills. Some 10% would like to work in veterinary, aquaculture and animal production fields, 60% in agriculture, and 84% in terrestrial and river environmental restoration. </p>
<p>There is also increasing interest in ecotourism in the 26 <a href="http://www.reincorporacion.gov.co/en/reincorporation/Pages/ETCR.aspx">Territorial Training and Reincorporation Spaces</a> (ETCRs) where the ex-combatants are currently based. </p>
<p>Their interests, the new political environment, and nearly 20 tourism initiatives in the ETCRs provide a unique opportunity to promote biodiversity as part of the peace process.</p>
<h2>Training ex-combatants to protect biodiversity</h2>
<p>We wanted to teach ex-FARC-EP combatants some basic conservation skills and identify the potential of nature to create sustainable business opportunities.</p>
<p>We started with a national workshop with the representatives of 16 ETCRs from across the country. These members reflected on their personal and scientific perceptions of the natural world, mapped ecosystems in their local areas and canvassed ecotourism projects. We then discussed the contributions they made to protecting biodiversity before the peace agreement. </p>
<p>One participant, Curruco* had his own farm before being displaced by the armed conflict. He told us, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>our participation in the workshops is evidence of our commitment to peace. We protected the fauna and flora during the conflict.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We then used case studies to teach our workshop members how to take inventory of the species in a given area, explored tourism of nature and conservation in Colombia and discussed business models for the use of biodiversity in ecotourism enterprises.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287475/original/file-20190809-144855-1jdl3ic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some participants explore caves.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mario Murcia</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most interesting parts for the ex-combatants was learning techniques for making inventories. We used teaching stations where they learnt about indirect surveys, for example using footprints and faeces, and direct observation and capture. We covered the use of binoculars, trapping cameras, tablets and mobiles, access to taxonomic identification resources and some basic non-invasive sampling methods. </p>
<p>One of the participants, Solangie, had a remarkable knowledge of the Amazon forest. She said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I enjoyed all the content of the training but I like the bird sightings and plant cataloguing the most because during my time as a combatant we were living among the fauna, including tapirs, reptiles, frogs and butterflies. </p>
<p>I was impressed with the training about plants because in our time in the jungle we used plants as medicine and health treatments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We then used these skills in practical field work to collect and inventory plants, sight birds and explore caves. The resulting notes and photographs were documented with <a href="https://www.inaturalist.org/">iNaturalist</a>, an online repository considered a major drawcard in engaging the public in science around the world.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287477/original/file-20190809-144878-13fsw28.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants graduated with new knowledge, skills and contacts in research and business.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jaime Gongora</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Turning knowledge into business</h2>
<p>We also wanted to give our participants a clear idea of how this knowledge could become profitable work. We hosted a business network forum, and 60 meetings were organised so FARC-EP ex-combatants could meet representatives of the major Colombian research institutions and agencies and gain support for their ecotourism and biodiversity initiatives.</p>
<p>Yesenia*, a mother of two, joined FARC at a young age after the paramilitary killed her parents. During the research, she said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If we want this peace process to succeed it will require the continued involvement of the various components of society, including scientific institutions and universities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Our work established two levels of organisation: a national biodiversity committee of ETCR representatives from across the country, and a committee of government and non-government institutions and agencies to coordinate and support their biodiversity and ecotourism initiatives.</p>
<p>All of this may sound relatively simple, but this is new and life-changing knowledge for people who were part of an armed conflict, fighting in the jungle against the government. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/violence-and-killings-havent-stopped-in-colombia-despite-landmark-peace-deal-111232">Violence and killings haven't stopped in Colombia despite landmark peace deal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One of us, Jaime, lived part of his life under this conflict, and found it very moving to see how the climate of trust has been changing. While there are, of course, considerable challenges, this was unimaginable before the peace agreements.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the University of Amazonia, Research Institute of Biological Resources Alexander Von Humboldt, Sinchi Amazonic Institute of Scientific Research, COLCIENCIAS-Colombia BIO, United Nations Development Programme, National Natural Parks Colombia, Vice-Ministry of Tourism, Social Economies of the Common, Agency for Reincorporation and Normalisation, Verification Mission of the United Nations, British Embassy in Colombia, ETCR participants, the GROW Colombia team at Earlham Institute, The University of East Anglia and The University of Sydney.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jaime Gongora receives funding thought the GROW Colombia project from the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF-UK BB/P028098/1). Member of the Colombian Interinstitutional Biodiversity and Ecotourism Committee for Reincorporation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Federica Di Palma receives funding from UKRI BBSRC-"Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF-UK BB/P028098/1)"
Member of Expert Committee "Mision de Sabios" providing recommendation to Colombian government on Science technology and Innovation.</span></em></p>In the wake of decades of violence, ex-guerrillas in Colombia are making conservation part of the path to peace.Jaime Gongora, Associate Professor, Animal and Wildlife Genetics and Genomics, University of SydneyFederica Di Palma, Director of Science, Earlham InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/750852017-03-26T08:46:05Z2017-03-26T08:46:05ZHow a genetic rescue mission could save the pink pigeon in Mauritius<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162205/original/image-20170323-4938-8cxh6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The rare Pink Pigeon.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>A research project using conservation genomics has been launched to save the Pink Pigeon in Mauritius. The Conversation Africa’s Samantha Spooner asked the projects lead researchers about the bird’s plight and their unique conservation approach.</em></p>
<p><strong>Where is the pink pigeon found and what threats does it face?</strong></p>
<p>The pink pigeon is found on the island of Mauritius, formerly home to another pigeon, the Dodo, <a href="http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/thezone/animals/extinct/dodo.htm">now extinct</a>. There are only around 400 birds left in the wild and about another 70 in captivity in zoos and wildlife parks around the world.</p>
<p>Until humans arrived in the 1600s Mauritius was quite literally a paradise island – no predators, no people and lush forests. </p>
<p>Humans hunted the Dodo for its meat. Luckily for the pink pigeon its flesh is often toxic and can induce stomach cramps and vomiting and so the settlers quickly learnt to leave them alone. </p>
<p>But some of their other actions had a drastic impact on the bird. </p>
<p>Humans unknowingly introduced four non-native predators – rats, cats, mongoose and crab-eating macaques – to the island. All prey on pink pigeons. Humans also decimated the pink pigeons’ habitat, clearing lush forests to make room for tea and sugar cane plantations. Today Mauritius has <a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org/application/index.php?tpid=30&tcid=77">only 2% of its native forest remaining</a>.</p>
<p>By introducing species of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230094654_The_incidence_of_the_parasitic_disease_Trichomoniasis_and_its_treatment_in_reintroduced_and_wild_Pink_Pigeons_Columba_mayeri">non-native birds</a> to the island settlers also, inadvertently, introduced a pathogen – disease causing micoorganism – that proved near fatal to the pink pigeon. <em>Trichomonas gallinae</em> is a protozoan parasite and kills <a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/esr2009/9/n009p213.pdf">over 50% of all pink pigeon squabs</a> (young). </p>
<p>Finally, because of population decline pink pigeons have low genetic diversity and suffer from inbreeding depression. These are negative effects produced when closely related individuals reproduce.</p>
<p><strong>Have Pink Pigeons been close to extinction before?</strong></p>
<p>It’s almost certain that pink pigeon numbers have been decreasing since the arrival of humans in the 1600s. But the population crashed in the 1970s leaving less than 20 birds. </p>
<p>A conservation programme, started by the <a href="https://www.durrell.org/wildlife/">Durrell Wildlife Trust</a> and <a href="http://www.mauritian-wildlife.org/application/">Mauritian Wildlife Foundation</a>, captured the remaining birds and started a captive breeding programme on Mauritius. The birds were intensively managed and reintroduced back into the wild in the 1980s where they continued be closely monitored. </p>
<p>In the early 1990s disaster struck again – <a href="https://www.durrell.org/wildlife/species-index/pink-pigeon/timeline/#myCarousel">caused mainly</a> by feral cat predation – and the population crashed to about nine birds. Volunteers and researchers from the Trust and Foundation, led by Professor Carl Jones, used innovative captive breeding strategies such as removing eggs or newborn chicks from pink pigeons and giving them to Barbary doves to foster, so that the pink pigeon parents could breed again. This breeding, followed by closely monitoring the re-introduced individuals, enabled the pink pigeon population to recover and reach its current population level in 1999.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zF7lvMIFYhw?wmode=transparent&start=132" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>A genomics conservation project has been launched to rescue them. Why did you take this route and how does it work?</strong></p>
<p>The pink pigeon is a conservation success story. But the work to save the species is by no means over. The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation works incredibly hard to manage and conserve the small remaining population. They control predators, treat sick individuals and provide supplementary feed. But, despite all these measures, the population has been unable to grow further and they struggle to even maintain current levels in the wild. This is not surprising when you consider that over 50% of eggs laid by pink pigeons don’t hatch and juvenile mortality is exceptionally high due to the impact of inbreeding depression, disease and predators.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IfaORMnHEdU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>That’s why we’ve embarked on a genetic rescue mission. The process involves adding new gene variants to a population by either natural immigration of individuals from separate populations or through reintroduction and translocations of individuals. </p>
<p>Research suggests that captive population of pink pigeons found in zoos and wildlife parks around the world – which was established as early as 1977 and unlike the <em>in situ</em> captive breeding programme has remained isolated – harbour genetic variation that the wild population lacks. </p>
<p>It’s our hope that by reintroducing individuals with new gene variants back into the wild we can reverse the negative effects of inbreeding and introduce alleles – different forms of a gene – that will increase disease resistance and overall genetic diversity. This will provide pink pigeons with the ability to adapt to any further challenges it faces.</p>
<p><strong>Is there evidence of this working with other animals?</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.defenders.org/florida-panther/basic-facts">Florida Panther</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6757/abs/402034a0.html">Swedish Adder</a> population and <a href="http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/south-island-robin">South Island robin</a> population are just some of the examples of populations of species which have been saved using genetic rescue. </p>
<p>But what’s interesting is that there are very few examples of genetic rescue being used. In fact there are many more scientific papers discussing genetic rescue than examples of it actually being applied. </p>
<p>There are less than 30 examples of genetic rescue, encompassing vertebrates, plants and invertebrates. This may be because scientists have been cautious in this field to avoid any possible negative effects. For example, a decrease in the fitness of a population through the introduction of detrimental genetic variants. </p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.13139/epdf">A recent study</a> by Professor Richard Frankham, an expert in the field of conservation genetics, showed that in over 94% of cases of genetic rescue, the results have been incredibly beneficial. He argues that the reluctance to use the technique can’t be justified scientifically. </p>
<p>The pink pigeon is an ideal candidate because we already have a lot of information about the species. This includes genome sequences from museum specimens – birds that were alive in the 1800’s before the population crash. This will allow us to thoroughly screen any candidates and ensure the gene variants we are reintroducing back into the wild population were there previously and are not, for example, variants that have helped a pink pigeon adapt to a life in captivity. These could be harmful to wild pink pigeons who obviously face different challenges to captive ones.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75085/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Camilla Ryan works as a doctoral research student at the Earlham Institute and University of East Anglia. She receives funding from the National Environment Research Council on an EnvEast DTP. Other partners working closely with her on this project are Durrell Wildlife Trust, Mauritian Wildlife Foundation and the Natural History Museum in London.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Clark works as Head of Technology Development for the Earlham Institute, and at the University of East Anglia. He consults for Acidophil, and holds shares in Pacific Biosciences of California. He receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the British Beet Research Organisation and Innovate UK. </span></em></p>By reintroducing new gene variants back into the wild, there’s hope it will reverse the negative impacts of pink pigeon inbreeding.Camilla Ryan, PhD candidate - Earlham Institute | School of Environmental Sciences, University of East AngliaMatt Clark, Head of Technology Development, Earlham InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/720992017-02-13T14:45:07Z2017-02-13T14:45:07ZFinding ways to double tilapia production in Tanzania without doing damage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156157/original/image-20170209-28743-lykw0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tanzania has around 30 species of tilapia, 11 of which are found nowhere else on earth. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Antony Njuguna</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tanzania is rich in exciting wildlife that has helped make it a <a href="http://allafrica.com/stories/201609270012.html">thriving</a> tourist destination. But some of its less photogenic species could also play an important role in the country’s economic development.</p>
<p>In the beautiful setting of Zanzibar it’s easy to forget that around a third of Tanzanian children under five are stunted due to <a href="https://www.unicef.org/tanzania/nutrition.html">malnutrition</a>. One in ten women are also undernourished. They are more likely to give birth to underweight infants, perpetuating the impact of <a href="https://www.unicef.org/tanzania/nutrition.html">undernutrition</a> down the generations.</p>
<p>Population growth is increasing demand for animal protein. Fish and fisheries products can provide a valuable source of protein, as well as essential micronutrients for balanced nutrition and health. But domestic production is unable to keep pace. So imports are <a href="http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/tza_en.stm">filling</a> the gap. Between 2010 and 2013 imports of fish and fishery products <a href="http://www.mifugouvuvi.go.tz/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ANNUAL-STATISTICS-REPORT-2013.pdf">increased</a> by 240%.</p>
<p>Worldwide, aquaculture – the farming of plants, algae (for instance, seaweed), and animals in aquatic environments – grows faster than any other food-production sector. This is often referred to as a <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/1974450">blue revolution</a>. In Africa, the industry is growing by 11.7% every year. But 90% of that growth is in just two countries – Egypt and Nigeria. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://repository.udsm.ac.tz:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1418">Tanzania</a>, aquaculture is still largely a small-scale rural initiative. It is characterised by small pond culture and contributes only 1.4% to GDP. There is much greater potential.</p>
<p>Inland water covers <a href="http://tafiri.weebly.com/">about</a> 6.5% of the total land area, including the Great Lakes –- Lake Victoria, Tanganyika and Nyasa/Malawi. The lakes are recognised as one of only 25 <a href="http://www.cnrs.fr/inee/recherche/fichiers/Biodiversite_hotspots.pdf">biodiversity hotspots</a> in the world because they are home to hundreds of species of <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-extraordinary-evolution-of-cichlid-fishes/">cichlid fish</a>. These include around 30 species of tilapia, 11 of which are not found anywhere else on earth. </p>
<p>The Earlham Institute and Bangor University, as part of an international consortium of organisations, are working to characterise the genetics of tilapia species in Tanzania. The larger consortium includes the Earlham Institute, Bangor University, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, <a href="http://www.worldfishcenter.org">WorldFish</a>, the University of Dar es Salaam, Sokoine University of Agriculture, and the Tanzanian Fisheries Research Institute. The aim is to improve aquaculture and fish production, while preserving Tanzania’s natural diversity and resources.</p>
<h2>Farming tilapia</h2>
<p>Tilapia are particularly suitable for aquaculture because they are able to tolerate different environments and conditions. Their growth rates are also relatively fast, and they have low system input <a href="http://blog.worldfishcenter.org/2015/11/tilapia-a-nutritous-environmentally-friendly-fish/">requirements</a>. They’re second only to carp as the world’s <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf">most frequently</a> farmed fish. </p>
<p>To help harness this potential, the consortium received funding from the Swedish “Agriculture for Food Security 2030” (AgriFoSe) and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. The participation of scientists from Bangor University and Earlham Institute was supported by a BBSRC award from the <a href="http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/filter/global-challenges-research-fund/">Global Challenges Research Fund</a> to bring together Tanzanian scientists, fish farmers and government officers with experts from around the world. </p>
<p>Last year the consortium drew up a resolution to establish a National Aquaculture Development Centre in Tanzania. The centre could help triple the contribution that aquaculture makes to the economy, <a href="http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/overarch/Vision2025.pdf">double the production</a> of fish in the country by 2025 and help improve access to fish as a protein source for those most vulnerable to undernutrition.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.mifugouvuvi.go.tz/">Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries</a> welcomed the centre’s input on developing new policy briefs that could help make the goals a reality. </p>
<p>As one of the partners the <a href="http://www.earlham.ac.uk/preservation-wild-tilapia-genetic-resources-aquaculture">Earlham Institute</a>, in close collaboration with Bangor University, can provide access to some of the most advanced sequencing technology in the world and training in how to apply it. This technology allows for the rapid identification of tilapia species that are responsible for traits of commercial importance, such as good growth rate and efficient use of feed.</p>
<p>The insitute can help characterise the diversity of wild tilapia species found in the country’s lakes, rivers, dams and wetlands. This analysis helps to identify which species have valuable traits for developing new breeding stock. </p>
<p>By developing broodstock from native tilapia, Tanzania has the potential to develop an independent industry. This would be based on its own supply of fingerlings (young fish), rather than relying solely on non-native species. In the 1980s Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) and Lates niloticus (Nile perch) were introduced to boost fisheries in Lake Victoria. Indigenous tilapia species <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271123878_The_tilapiine_fish_stock_of_Lake_Victoria_before_and_after_the_Nile_perch_upsurge">declined</a> to extremely low levels or vanished from the lake altogether.</p>
<p>A Tanzanian aquaculture seed bank could be valuable for breeders worldwide, for example by offering strains adapted to harsh environments.</p>
<h2>New smartphone app</h2>
<p>With Bangor University and software development partners Geosho, we are also developing a new way to track invasive species. A new smartphone app, “<a href="http://bangoriaa.com/tilapia-mapping-application/">TilapiaMap</a>”, can be used to help identify tilapia species in the field and map the distribution of recorded species. It could help highlight regions rich in pure species, where conservation measures could be put in place. It could also flag regions with a high number of hybrids that pose a biosecurity risk.</p>
<p>In this way, we hope to help preserve the natural biodiversity on which an independent industry could be built. This could make a real contribution to food security and could continue to supply novel traits for breeding into the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Federica Di Palma receives funding from BBSRC UK</span></em></p>Tilapia could play an important role in Tanzania’s economic development.Federica Di Palma, Director of Science, Earlham InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.