CRISPR, the disruptor

Ledford, Heidi

doi:10.1038/522020a

Cited by 319 publications

(210 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, to modify agricultural insects and pests, particularly for the trait of sterility as an approach to population control [35]. While this approach is particularly being explored to control populations of wild organisms linked to human disease (e.g., mosquitos implicated in the spread of malaria), there is also research being conducted into their use to remove problematic pests or weeds in agricultural areas and particularly in combination with gene drives, which allow certain genes to be positively biased in sexually reproducing organisms so that they become dominant and spread to all members of a population [36]. There is also a significant level of investment into the development of synthetic biology [37], although commercial applications of this within agriculture may be further into the future than the other NPBTs described.…”

Section: Defining What Is Gmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Biotechnology is diversifying rapidly through the development and application of new approaches to genome editing and ongoing research into synthetic biology. Proponents of biotechnology are enthusiastic about these new developments and have recently begun calling for environmental movements to abandon their campaigns against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and for organic agriculture to reconsider its exclusion of Genetic Modification (GM). In this article, we begin by describing the diversity of practices that cluster under both the terms GM and organic and show that although there is a clash of different cultures of agriculture at stake, there is also a spectrum of practices existing between these two poles. Having established the terms of the debate, we then go on to analyse whether the organic movement should reconsider its position on GM in light of new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs), using the criteria highlighted as important by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in their 2016 draft revised position on GMOs. Through this analysis, we suggest that given the in-context-trajectory of biotechnology development, the continued narrow framing of agricultural problems and the ongoing exclusion of important socio-economic, political and cultural dimensions, the organic movement is justified in maintaining its opposition to GM in the face of NPBTs.

show abstract

Section: Defining What Is Gmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Genetic engineering of trees to confer resistance to fungal pathogens and insect pests could, however, provide an outstanding opportunity to address or mitigate the effect of native or invasive diseases (Häggman et al 2016). Likewise, the convenience and decreasing cost of obtaining -omics data of nonmodel organisms and the development of new inexpensive tools for gene editing, such as CRISPR-Cas systems (Ledford 2015), will make these technologies available in more laboratories and for more plant species. Cisgenic approaches may gain broader social support than transgenics because they use genes from the same or closely related plant species, whereas transgenic approaches use genes from non-plant organisms or distantly related plants (Hou et al 2014;Corredoira et al 2016).…”

Section: Use Of Genetic Engineering (Ge) In the Search For Resistant mentioning

confidence: 99%

Breeding and scientific advances in the fight against Dutch elm disease: Will they allow the use of elms in forest restoration?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elms (Ulmus spp.) were once dominant trees in mixed broadleaf forests of many European territories, mainly distributed near rivers and streams or on floodplains. Since ancient times they have provided important services to humans, and several selected genotypes have been massively propagated and planted. Today elm populations are severely degraded due to the negative impact of human-induced changes in riparian ecosystems and the emergence of the highly aggressive Dutch elm disease pathogens. Despite the death of most large elm specimens, there is no evidence of genetic diversity loss in elm populations, probably due to their ability to resprout after disease. The recovery of elm populations from the remaining diversity should build from genomic tools that facilitate achievement of resistant elm clones. Research works to date have discerned the genetic diversity of elms and are well on the way to deciphering the genetic clues of elm resistance and pathogen virulence, key findings for addressing recovery of elm populations. Several tolerant clones suitable for use in urban and landscape planting have been obtained through traditional species hybridization with Asian elms, and various native clones have been selected and used in pilot forest restoration projects. Successful reintroduction of elms should also rely on a deeper understanding of elm ecology, in particular their resilience to abiotic and biotic disturbances. However, all these efforts would be in vain without the final acceptance of elm reintroduction by the social actors involved, making it necessary to evaluate and publicize the ecosystem services elms can provide for today's society.

show abstract

“…Key safety concerns relate to the outbreeding and spread of these new varieties into natural populations, the detectability of these new variants (Breeding Controls 2016) and challenges to established coexistence provisions (Ledford 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%