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

Although scholars in science and technology studies have explored many dynamics and consequences of scientific controversy, no coherent theory of scientific dissent has emerged. This paper proposes the elements of such a framework, based on understanding scientific dissent as a set of heterogeneous practices. I use the controversy over the presence of transgenic DNA in Mexican maize in the early 2000s to point to a processual model of scientific dissent. 'Contrarian science' includes knowledge claims that challenge the dominant scientific trajectory, but need not necessarily lead to dissent. 'Impedance' represents efforts to undermine the credibility of contrarian science (or contrarian scientists) and may originate within or outside of the scientific community. In the face of impedance, contrarian scientists may become dissenters. The actions of the scientist at the center of the case study, Professor Ignacio Chapela of the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrate particular practices of scientific dissent, ranging from 'agonistic engagement' to 'dissident science'. These practices speak not only to functional strategies of winning scientific debate, but also to attempts to reconfigure relations among scientists, publics, institutions, and politics that order knowledge production.Keywords agricultural biotechnology, contrarian science, dissident science, genetically modified crops, transgene flow Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous PracticeJason A. Delborne [C]ontroversies over science and technology are struggles over meaning and morality, over the distribution of resources, and over the locus of power and control. (Nelkin, 1995: 445)

Invasive rodents impact biodiversity, human health and food security worldwide. The biodiversity impacts are particularly significant on islands, which are the primary sites of vertebrate extinctions and where we are reaching the limits of current control technologies. Gene drives may represent an effective approach to this challenge, but knowledge gaps remain in a number of areas. This paper is focused on what is currently known about natural and developing synthetic gene drive systems in mice, some key areas where key knowledge gaps exist, findings in a variety of disciplines relevant to those gaps and a brief consideration of how engagement at the regulatory, stakeholder and community levels can accompany and contribute to this effort. Our primary species focus is the house mouse, Mus musculus , as a genetic model system that is also an important invasive pest. Our primary application focus is the development of gene drive systems intended to reduce reproduction and potentially eliminate invasive rodents from islands. Gene drive technologies in rodents have the potential to produce significant benefits for biodiversity conservation, human health and food security. A broad-based, multidisciplinary approach is necessary to assess this potential in a transparent, effective and responsible manner.

The deployment of gene drives is emerging as an alternative for protecting endangered species, controlling agricultural pests, and reducing vector-borne diseases. This paper reports on a workshop held in February 2016 to explore the complex intersection of political, economic, ethical, and ecological risk issues associated with gene drives. Workshop participants were encouraged to use systems thinking and mapping to describe the connections among social, policy, economic, and ecological variables as they intersect within governance systems. In this paper, we analyze the workshop transcripts and maps using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to categorize variables associated with gene drive governance and account for the complexities of socio-ecological systems. We discuss how the IAD framework can be used in the future to test hypotheses about how features of governance systems might lead to certain outcomes and inform the design of research programs, public engagement, and anticipatory governance of gene drives. ARTICLE HISTORY