Q&A webinar Green Enlightenment

Thank you all for the impressive attendance (nearly 400) and for the many questions.

Answering with the appropriate nuance would sometimes require several pages.

The answers would also rely on my view and position in the debate, which is: What is science and how can we best use science for making decisions regarding daily life and socio-economic problems?

The aim of this first B+B café was to ask for your attention to Plant Biotechnology and Plant Breeding as essential sciences for improving agriculture, mitigating environmental damage, and producing feedstock to sustainable industry. I wished to provoke reflections on our still limited knowledge of the molecular basis of plant physiology and plant reproduction. This despite the enormous developments of the last fifty years. What does it mean for our understanding of plant genetics that the first eukaryotic plants evolved from the protists of aquatic green algae over a billion years ago? How did plant communities come into being, relying on the microbiome as source of symbionts and pathogens? How do they react to daily, seasonal and accidental weather changes? As sessile organism, how could they spread reproductive cells adapted to different soil conditions?

Great societal problems, such as overpopulation, cannot be solved by science alone. But I am convinced that the advancement of basic knowledge of plant science can help to find ways to produce food while avoiding the depletion of resources and promoting the restoration of our planet from environmental damage. It takes more than plant science to advance the transformative change in agriculture needed to address food insecurity, poverty and inequality. But that is not really the topic of this first talk, so more about that will come upon another occasion.

Communication really seems crucial to enhance public acceptance of GMOs and more recently, genome editing. But what should be the message to the public? To explain the technology (e.g. CRISPR-Cas) or to open their eyes that genomic changes are natural and that natural genomes are inherently diverse? My deepest concern is that most people don't understand how diverse and "messy" an organism's genome actually already is, even before we entered the era of genome editing! Would this not be the major missing element in the whole discussion?

Indeed. scientific literacy will never be sufficient, although we must all engage in this Sisyphus’ task. It is very important to pass the message that genome diversity and evolution are inherent to life. But I’m afraid even that is not enough. I think we must explain to all of society, in layman's terms, how the domestication of plants and animals and "genetic improvement" occurred in the context of evolution. Nevertheless, the scientific bases of new technologies should also be explained to environmentalists and to other specialists in life sciences.

The process of decision-making in human society relies on the interaction of emotion and cognition. Both mechanisms co-evolved in the brain, so that they complement and sustain each other. So, acceptance is not only rational, but is also largely emotional.

Our emotions are rooted in chemical-physical mechanism developed at the dawn of life to react and interact with the surrounding environment - learning how to obtain the energy needed to live and yet avoid danger - and, by doing so, to survive and thrive. Emotional and reasoning mechanisms evolved in our brain in a strongly interconnected, reciprocal and malleable relationship. Emotion may overwhelm reason whenever the environment fails to provide all the information needed for decision-making. Emotions, however, being a result of introspective awareness of internal information, may be poor guides to shape our cultural accomplishments in a diverse, globalized and environmentally endangered world. Moreover, emotions are easily manipulated by intellectual dishonesty - advocacy of a position using arguments or data known to be fallacious, appealing to fear, ridicule, disgust and other emotions. The current anti-GMO activism that exploits these feelings is an example of intellectual dishonesty.

How to reach people's emotions positively, without being manipulative? Science, by working at the frontier of knowledge, helps to provide more information, but at the same time unveil more unknowns, which generate emotional discomfort.  But when scientific knowledge generates new technologies to improve our capacity to survive and thrive, we become emotionally prompted to embrace scientific development. So, the only way to get plant biotechnology accepted by society is to have products that the general public deems good for them and for society.

Prof, do you feel that the current system in place for investigating plant genomes in response to certain abiotic and biotic stresses is good enough to allow for a comprehensive contribution to the knowledge of plants? i.e. Is it enough to publish MSc or PhD work in scientific journals, or should we start incorporating a social science aspect to our degree programs that will aid in our knowledge being shared with those who need it most?

Thanks for this question Anonymous Attendee. I totally agree with you and think it should not be limited to graduate studies, but rather be included in all academic fields. The university not only creates and disseminates knowledge, but also endows society with the skills necessary to serve it. Knowledge is a construction that involves multiple transdisciplinary domains, each domain having its own conceptual structure, its theoretical archetype and its specialized terminology, which makes interdisciplinary exchanges very difficult. It is a limitation of the human brain. But transdisciplinary education is essential because it advances an amalgam of perspectives that consolidate knowledge and can be useful in understanding the bigger picture. This issue concerns all disciplines We can advance knowledge on the properties of plants that can bring value to society, but, at the same time, each university field of study should help us to communicate with other specialists about how to organize best our human community. It is extremely important because knowledge evolves over time and must at the same time be used as it is today to meet the current needs of society.
 

We live in a 'well fed' society in Europe that perceives risks rather than benefits from plant biotechnology. This society chooses the precautionary principle instead of facts to make decisions. Might the experience with pandemics change this situation,or do we need to do something else? What is your opinion, Marc?

Indeed, one of the major barriers to the introduction of plant biotech products in agriculture has been the precautionary principle. I compare the cultural and public health measures for fighting the pandemic such as social distancing and protective equipment with the new agricultural strategies to address food security challenges: necessary but not sufficient. Controlling the pandemic requires more than sanitary measures. We need modern technologies to accelerate vaccine development and improve vaccine effectiveness. Likewise, the desire to avoid plant biotechnology is to deny the value of the scientific research that plant breeders so badly need.

The EU policies that claim that organic agriculture is better for health has to be scientifically documented and its various risks to the planet acknowledged and overcome. We all agree that the inputs that are used in agriculture as well as the additives used after harvest in the food production chain - storage, transport and processing - must be continually assessed. But to say that biotechnology concepts for developing new crop plants are radically different and riskier than the domestication of plants that have always been used by breeders is scientifically nonsense. Advances in molecular and cellular biology are essential to accelerate the generation of crops to produce food with less land and fewer inputs. But the plant biotechnology solutions have been largely ignored by FAO, academics, and agroecologists.

The pandemic shows how vulnerable humanity is and how quickly research and technology can help. Now more than ever, we need to join forces to let people know that plant biotechnology can help. The denial of the benefits of plant biotechnology blocks all research activities. We have already wasted too much time. We must adopt new technologies to save our lives and avoid an environmental catastrophe. We need an evidence-based risk management strategy that is alert to the challenges of agriculture and food production for vulnerable populations.

On this occasion, I would like to thank you, Geert, for your pioneering efforts to underline the importance of understanding the human spirit and the disciplines called “human sciences” in our university.

What are your thoughts about breeding companies which are primarily driven by profits?

It is not only a complex question, but it is also the fundamental question of how we organize our society. Paleontologists have proven that the trade in tools and technology was already present and favored certain communities as early as 50,000 years ago. This is long before humans started farming and animal husbandry (10,000 years ago).

Anthropologists have a lot of information about how political and economic power promotes development. The history of economic development indicates the complex relationship of advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of new technologies (e.g., the industrial revolution and the environmental damage generated). Industry in our economic system is always motivated by profit. The problem is, what's the right balance? Scientific progress is one thing. To use it to favor a given market to the detriment of social interest is another thing. The three pillars that support modern human civilization - society, science and economics - must be properly symmetrical and based on sound ethical and moral principles. It should not be forgotten that scientific knowledge acquisition is largely funded by society.

There is a lot more to discuss on this question but, as I pointed out in the introductory remarks of this Q&A, the right balance between rational and emotional intelligence to optimize the quality of life is not the subject of this talk.

I have written on this issue in a recent article (The future of plant biotechnology in a globalized and environmentally endangered world. Genet. Mol. Biol. 43 (Suppl. 2), e20190040 (2020).

Society, through its governments, financed knowledge creation in public research institutions which allowed industry to deliver GM crops to the market. Industry favored products that were the most profitable for the commercial producer; numerous innovations with clear benefits to the public, in general, were kept on the shelf at public institutions for lack of industrial partners. In a number of cases industry acquired start-ups, frequently spin-offs of public sector research, with the purpose of phasing out innovations that could compete with industry’s own products. The lack of products that bring clear benefit to the consumer generated uneasiness among the public, which was susceptible to campaigns claiming that GM products were not safe, and asking for strict regulations for planting and marketing GM foods. This severely limited other entering the market because of expensive or impossible hurdles to the entry of new GM products. Only the holders of the patents to the few early GM products were able to continue to sell their few products. The consequent monopoly of GM seeds by transnational agribusiness companies accrued the campaign of ideology groups, which in turn lobbied with politics to ban the cultivation of GM crops in the EU. The political decision triggered the shrinking of public funds for research on plant biotechnology, severely delaying the development of innovations that are badly needed to promote agricultural sustainability.

Enlightenment started in Europe and from there it spread around the world. What can you comment about the official position of the European Union regarding production of genetically engineered crops and the influence of this position on the position of other countries? For example, in my country, Bolivia, opponents to these technologies always mention Europe as an example: "If Europe does not allow it, it is because it is dangerous and we cannot allow it". Thank you very much

Indeed, we cannot ignore that the European regulatory policy is moving in the opposite direction by delaying or banning the implementation of GM technology where it is most needed. We also cannot ignore that poor public acceptance of GMOs is shaping the European regulatory policy. Much of the public’s mistrust in GM crops is because of the work of anti-GM organizations in the EU, and more recently in the USA. They draw upon and generate anti-GM sentiment by employing fallacious arguments as to their safety. These rich countries are comfortable enough to protect themselves by citing a nonsensical precautionary principle instead of listening to science-based recommendations.  Unfortunately, their claims lead to anti-GMO policies in developing countries, especially in those that seek markets in Europe. This compromises food production and risks to provoke a global security crisis.

Anti-GMO campaign around the world has already prevented many varieties with improved agricultural and nutritionally characteristics from being planted. The best-known example is Golden Rice, which could have prevented blindness and death in millions of children. This illustrates the need for politicians in the so-called ‘Developed World’ to think hard before claiming without any real facts that something is dangerous to human health.

The use of fake news to attain political goals is immoral and should be openly confronted. Our failure to communicate about science has allowed the hijacking of scientific knowledge by ideology, which has perverted politics. We would be better off by convincing people to think wisely and to learn to operate from proven facts. The West’s global dominance, which is rooted in scientific development, can when polluted by misinformation, become the source of scientific inertia beyond its own frontiers. Plant technology is a mature technology, safe, and has an extraordinary record of benefits, both economic and humanitarian. But advances must be accompanied by adaptations in our the social, political, and cultural attitudes in order to attain the paradigm shift our society needs.

The world distressed with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak reminds us that we are all citizens of the same world, which cannot be contained by geo-political barriers. Science can help. Plant biotechnology can help. It is sustainable and can increase global food production.

I recommend to you Jennifer Thomson’s new book, GM Crops and the Global Divide. It is an enlightening historical documentation and analysis of the GMO controversy.

Why try to produce more food? Why not completely focus on overpopulation issues? It is at the core of all environmental problems. Is this possible in our economic growth-driven society? Thank you, Marc!

When we trace the world's population over the past 12,000 years, we observe exponential growth from 1700 onwards. This is a serious danger not only to our survival but also to the survival of all terrestrial ecosystems and requires urgent action. We do know, however, that in order to control the human population, we must promote a global revolution in the way we see our place in the world.

Human societies are complex. Humans are part of the tree of life. Reproduction is a basic need, a sine qua non condition of life. All forms of life have the same specific behavioral characteristics: look for food and avoid danger to ‘resist and project itself in the future no matter what’ (Damasio, A. “The strange order of things: Life, feeling, and the making of cultures”, p81. Penguin Random House LLC, USA, 2018). ‘Resist’ means to preserve its singularity as a system that makes use of organized energy to avoid its tendency to disorder and dissolution (entropy). ‘Project to the future’ means to reproduce because, at some point, virtually all organic units normally decline and die. So, individually, the choice to not reproduce is a tough decision. There is need for a deep transformation in our societies (and it has really to be in all our societies). When we abandon the flawed view that the planet Earth and the human World are different things, we realize that the biosphere and the phenomena derived from it, such as human civilization, are being pushed to the brink of collapse.

Humanity needs more compassion towards our human societies and the planet’s living systems. Meanwhile, it is important not only to try to produce more food with minimal environmental damage, but also to learn to accept population control.

In Plant B+B, what are the roles played by Genomics? I can understand that molecular biologists and biochemists will perform a lot of experiments (e.g. to study gene function or plant transformation)?

Advances in genomics provide plant breeders and biotechnologists with new tools and methodologies for the agricultural revolution we urgently need to accelerate the transition to sustainable economic, social and environmental initiatives. Thanks to genomics, the relationship between phenotype and genotype takes steps beyond Mendelian traits; genome-wide expression studies are helping to unravel the molecular basis of complex traits.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and the analysis of genomes and transcriptomes by bioinformatics facilitate the discovery of new genes and regulatory sequences that can be modified by genetic engineering and new-breeding technologies. One beautiful example is the use of site-specific nucleases, particularly the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) system, for precise genome manipulation such as the long-dreamed induction of targeted chromosomal rearrangements (crossovers, inversions, or translocations). This molecular tool can alter genetic linkages between traits to combine or separate favorable and deleterious genes, respectively, avoiding natural rearrangements that are huge obstacles for the breeding process.

Several genomic tools greatly expand the choice of markers available, facilitating the study of genetic diversity which is essential for the management and improvement of genetic material. For example, genome re-sequencing facilitates genome-wide discovery of markers for high throughput genotyping platforms like SSRs and SNPs and construction of high-density genetic linkage maps. Whole genome association studies (GWAS) and genotyping by sequencing (GBS) make it possible to screen collections of genetic material for allelic variants of a target gene. They also allow the identification of markers linked to Mendelian genes and QTLs. Genome-wide expression studies allow breeders to understand the molecular basis of complex traits. These examples are not exhaustive and other applications are under development, demonstrating the fundamental role of genomics in plant breeding and plant biotechnology.

In addition, "omics" studies such as metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, and metaproteomics in the rhizosphere environment have revealed important information on the microbial diversity, specificity of plant-microbe interactions, their responses to various biotic and abiotic stimuli, and the physiology of disease suppression. Knowledge of the interactions between the microbial community and plant species holds immense potential for sustainable agriculture.

Is it possible to control overpopulation by achieving great productivity of crops?

No. To control overpopulation, we need much more than better and more productive agriculture. We need a radical shift in the way our societies see and interact with all other living systems. In the meantime, what we can do as plant scientists is to develop an agriculture that can feed the human population while reducing environmental damage to preserve the Earth's biodiversity.

Nevertheless, Hans Rosling has pointed out that the average family size is higher among families living in extreme poverty. Parents living in extreme poverty need to have a big family because they need to have extra children in case some children die, as their children are needed for labour in their farming subsistence activity. When these families can have higher crop yields with fewer labour efforts in their land plot, children are no longer required for child labour. Moreover, when women are educated and have information about contraceptive methods, “across cultures and religions both the men and the woman instead start dreaming of having fewer, well-educated children” (Rosling, Hans, O. Rosling, and A. R. Rönnlund. Factfulness: Ten reasons we're wrong about the world–And why things are better than you think: Sceptre. (2018) p.91).  

Do you think that complete reliance on GMOs which is controlled by a few commercial companies is a solution to feed the growing population, as many of the developing countries’ farmers cannot afford to buy new seeds every season? In addition, the price is controlled by those companies and any price hike directly affects the life of the people.

The initial problem with GMOs was indeed the fact that transnational seed companies immediately jumped on the technology when they realized its potential. These companies limit their products to staple crops with high commercial value, such as corn and soybeans. This is the real reason activists have reacted against GMOs. It was not about the technology itself, but how it was deployed in society. Public opinion and policymakers were aware of the situation but found that blocking the technology to reduce the influence of transnational corporations over food production was easier than taking direct action against the monopoly of such corporations. I think it was an unfortunate strategy. If, on the contrary, public opinion and political decision-makers had pushed for the development of GM crops that could improve the profits of small farmers, we could have progressed faster towards more environmentally friendly agriculture.

It is true what you say. When the farmer buys GM seeds, he chooses to respect the legal constraints of a contract in which he undertakes not to save the seeds from year to year. In fact, seed companies invest millions in the costs of research and development of a new variety. Intellectual property rights allow breeding companies to recoup these costs, also known as innovation costs. There are also regulatory costs, which depend on the statutes in force for obtaining a marketing authorization in a given country, which are particularly high for genetically modified seeds.

These are in fact heavy constraints for the development of genetically modified seeds outside the large agribusiness companies. But it's a battle worth fighting for. On the one hand, because most if not all scientific discoveries that paved the way to biotech crops come from universities and public research institutes. Since most of the innovation costs come from public funding, it is fair that society as a whole benefits from biotech products. The company that owns the intellectual property rights may block the use of innovation in cultures that are not part of its portfolio. This is the case of so-called orphan crops that are planted by poor small farmers.  On the other hand, even if a given GM-Event is off-patent, it is very difficult for another organization to take over the product. The holder of regulatory ownership remains legally responsible for all matters related to identity, quality and product performance. The regulatory approvals must be maintained in the countries in which the GM crop is growing, as well as in the countries where plants containing the products derived from GM plants will be exported. In many countries, these approvals are time-limited and need to be renewed regularly.

If we want poor smallholder farmers to benefit from innovative seeds, whether transgenic or not, it is essential to have them produced locally by seed companies financed by public funds and charities. The crops that poor farmers need most are nutritious and resilient to biotic and abiotic stresses in their specific niche. But these crops are of little or no interest to the handful of agrobiotech companies that dominate the GMO market today.

Do you think biotechnological advancements will have a great impact on feeding the world if resources continue to be distributed unequally? In other words: will science be able to solve political problems?

Not immediately. In my opinion, science is one of the three major forces shaping our modern world along with the economy and society policy. These forces are linked and interdependent. Science is the engine of innovation, which in turn is the central force in the economic transformation of society. Society policy sets the priorities of science and pushes innovation forward (or backward). Nonetheless, I am convinced that advances in biotechnology can help promote food security by reducing inequalities in food production. Recent advances in new breeding techniques offer an opportunity to radically improve local food security by producing a greater variety of cheaper and more nutritious foods capable of growing in diverse climatic and soil environments. The challenge, therefore, is not whether biotechnology can contribute, but whether we are smart enough to apply advances in biotechnology in an appropriate, judicious and relevant way to different cultural societies in order to make real improvements on a global scale.

So far, agricultural biotechnology innovations have prioritized yield and productivity, disproportionately promoting food production in the high-income country. Much less attention has been paid to horticultural crops, even though these crops have the potential to improve the livelihoods and food security of smallholder farmers. Of course, access to biotechnological advances for the production of local crops is not sufficient to generate better livelihoods. They must be accompanied by transport, processing along food value chains and marketing. In short, advances in science must be aligned with political and economic drivers. As I said before, this is a battle worth fighting for.

To answer your core question - will science be able to solve political problems - it suffices to see how our societies have changed under the influence of the knowledge and innovations brought by the science of non-living matter such as mathematics, physics and chemistry. Inventions such as the refrigerator, the airplane, the computer, among many others, have strongly influenced our political behaviors.

Dear Professor, what about building in resilient agro-ecosystems? To find solutions by accessing all PGRs such as landraces, adding the plus value of the Local Knowledge? Build positive fillings. Learning to redefine subjects such as into the Aristotelian philosophy? I am fascinated by the logic you are accessing professor. Thank you

It is an idyllic view of the world. One of the questions Aristotle sets out about each thing is "what made it come into being and what made it change."  So, we should ask ourselves what caused agriculture and what made it as it is now. I fear that our primitive agriculture cannot cope with the size of humanity. I'm also worried that today's agriculture is sending us straight to the wall. Yes, we should further explore plant genetic resources to diversify our food production and make agriculture more resilient to climatic instabilities. But we cannot ignore that traditional knowledge alone cannot provide the food we need. We need a new agriculture that will use all the knowledge we have accumulated so far. If ancient landraces could feed the population satisfactorily, they probably would not have been abandoned. Now it is up to modern science to improve the yield and quality of these landraces so that we can have them back on our plates.

Considering your global experience Marc, what would you think is the future of biotechnology (particularly genetic engineering) in relation to food security (in Africa for instance), realizing that many African governments may not have robust biosafety assessment processes?

Let us not forget that what is called the “biosafety assessment process” is a set of laws that are sometimes influenced more by emotional feelings than by scientific-based evidence.

Indeed, the limited use of biotech crops in Africa has compromised the valuable opportunities for crop improvement already available on other continents. But as a late adopter, Africa has limitless possibilities to harness the immense knowledge accumulated over the past two decades and to avoid some of the difficulties faced by early adopters.

Most African countries have ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety whose enforcement led to national biosafety legislation. However, the implementation of the regulatory framework for biotechnology is far from being uniform in the African continent.  Arguably, the decades-old controversy between the United States and the European Union over the application of the precautionary principle to the regulation of GMOs was a proxy for preserving economic interest. This has affected the development of functional biosafety policy and limited GM-crop development in Africa. It is high time to support the right fight for science-based risk assessment models in African countries that focus on local agricultural and environmental practices, rather than on a Western model. This can facilitate cheaper, faster and safer assessment of local/regional GM crops, reducing burdens on individual countries and encouraging regional harmonization of regulatory frameworks.

In competitive yield trials in the US, yields of existing varieties often reach 200% or even more of the average yield in the same region. In other words: the potential for such yield is already in the plants' genome - it is the farmer taking special care of this plot. Thus it seems it is rather a question of proper agronomy than of further breeding (w/ or w/o transgenic approaches) to increase crop yield. Would you agree?

No. The facts may be correct, but the interpretations are more complex. We have to ask what is meant by 'farmers taking special care' of the plot. Is it more external inputs, better irrigation, more labor? Is it sustainable? Sustainable intensification of agriculture will not be achieved only with new management strategies. Seed improvement remains essential, as proper agronomy is likely to yield even higher yields when the right seeds are sown. Each environment is unique. It is imperative to develop of crop varieties that can give a high yield with less inputs, suited to local soil and weather conditions. In cases of climate-stresses, better seeds can help agriculture adapt to evolutionary threats.

With your hindsight Marc, what could we have done differently for the EU to have benefitted from deployment of GM crops?

Any innovation development should be accompanied by a study of impact on society and appropriate communication on this impact. The risks and benefits presented by new agricultural technologies are perceived and experienced differently by different stakeholders and this should be addressed as a priority.

In fact, the first GM crops widely grown today were designed out of concerns about the chemical industry's adverse effects on the environment. The red light started with the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, when methyl isocyanate spilled from the Union Carbide India Ltd pesticide plant, killing over 15,000 people and affecting over 600,000 workers. Under the impact of the world's worst industrial disaster, the pesticide industry was receptive to the shift towards less environmentally damaging agriculture. The problem is that the positive environmental impact of the new GM-seeds was not proclaimed early enough or satisfactorily enough.

Also, ideally, we should have invested in products that have clear benefits for end-consumers. The benefits to farmers or the environmental gains are intangible for the majority of people. We should have privileged humanitarian innovations such as Golden Rice, with seeds produced by international agricultural research centers, as is indeed the case. Many questions remain:  Could it be possible? Would we be able to do it sooner? We have seen that patent holders can give it away for humanitarian purposes. It is time to open the discussion on how to better organize the use patent rights.

What do African countries need to do in order to be powerful in plant B+B where I see the need to eliminate extreme hunger!  Only Plant B+B synergy can solve agricultural problems what do you mean?

I mean that plant biotechnology is essential to quickly introduce the genetic modifications to drastically shorten the development of new cultivars. However, plant biotechnology is impossible without plant breeding. A crop is more than genetic manipulation. A phenotype is the result of the interaction of genotype with environment. This is a task to plant breeders: to choose the best combination of the new engineered trade with other traits of the plant to make it an ideal crop for a given environment, as well as to respond to the accelerating environmental changes.

As I mentioned in the answer to Lara Pereira Garcia, Africa needs an agricultural revolution aimed squarely at the needs of Africans, with the participatory engagement of local actors. A tenacious government agricultural policy is essential. It will take international scientific cooperation to exchange scientific knowledge and technology, as well as infrastructure to develop and promote the sustainable agriculture that Africa needs.

Thanks Marc.
(1) I hear a lot of statements on the need to convince. Indeed, but where to start? Should the consumers be convinced directly? or through the governments? Where lies the trigger and who should communicate?
 (2) Aside from transferring knowledge/evidence, what incentives should we focus on when aiming to shift opinions. When talking about food, taste-price-health seem to be the easy tools for directly shifting minds, or should we seek it elsewhere?

To answer to your two questions:
(1)    Governments are chosen by society, so they tend not to contradict the voters' point of view too much. I think we have to assist stakeholders, consumers and the general public to understand the rationale behind a decision, so that they may arrive at a balanced judgment that reflects the factual evidence in relation to their own interests and values.
A special effort should be made to enlighten decision-makers, so that they have the arguments to take the necessary measures even if those measures are against the tide of public opinion. Communication is not for amateurs. Effective communicators need to be credible and trustworthy, and different people may be needed for different target groups. In general, the credibility of communicators depends on cultural norms and differs between societies and between sectors. In addition, communicators must have excellent language and listening skills.
(2)    I agree that we should focus on the benefits that technology can bring. At this point, we should have had many more examples of healthy and tasting foods on the market. We must also focus our efforts on developments of a humanitarian nature. It would be good for the world to learn about them; such examples could change minds.
 

African agriculture faces different problems such as climate variability, lack of necessary agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers, machinery...) and others. Why only GMO and molecular breeding? Better to focus on plant breeding according to better nutrient use efficiency, morphological change regarding environmental stress and yield.

You're absolutely right that we need to select crop varieties that are suited to local conditions, resistant to pests and diseases, and less dependent on chemical inputs and irrigation. The process of developing a new cultivar must be, however, dramatically shortened. The needs of Africans and the accelerating environmental changes require urgent actions. We cannot get better harvests quickly enough with classical breeding based on empirical observations and traditional wisdom. Plant science has already shown that this acceleration is achievable. Plant breeding will benefit greatly from genetic engineering, new breeding techniques and molecular breeding tools. So, why not invest in them? I am convinced that modern crops, associated of course with new management strategies, can reverse the catastrophic trend of our current agricultural system.

The great merit of ‘ecological movements’ is to show the environmental problems that today's intensive agriculture has brought. The polluting technologies used in agriculture so far are there precisely because of the lack of knowledge on plant science 50 years ago.

Dear Marc, congratulations! Can you suggest any alternative way to produce more food/feed than molecular biology? Very best, thank you!

Thank you, Thomas, for your continued support of plant biotechnology.

It seems logical to the non-agricultural specialist to aim for a higher yield in a sustainable way, with the greatest respect for the environment. Several management methods and approaches are being proposed that can contribute to this so-called sustainable intensification of agriculture. These range from wise land management with various cropping systems and soil health care to high-tech approaches using algorithms and geospatial technologies to help make the good decisions on what and where to plant, and drones to monitor the use of fertilizers and pesticides. While very promising, I fear that management approaches are not enough if we really want to do more with less. To increase yields on existing land and using fewer inputs, crop improvement cannot be ignored. If we are to preserve soils and ecosystems, we need crops that require less fertilizers and are resistant to pests because they are in better symbiosis with soil microorganisms. To this end, biotechnological approaches to improve crops and soil microbiota, together with the management methods mentioned above, are the best and fastest strategies.

Plant genetics remains a key component for the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Biotech seeds can have an immediate impact on yield, due to higher productivity and lower crop losses. Biotechnologies and modern breeding techniques can accelerate the development of crops to adapt agriculture to climatic stresses and that require less nutrients, preserving the soil. Pest and disease-resistant crops will advance pest management strategies.

Back to the early days of plant genetic engineering, knowing what has happened 30 years after, how would you have done things differently?

Thank you, Marc. I appreciate all your efforts in the development of tropical agriculture

To answer your question, I would say that I could have worked harder and more efficiently. I would have started earlier discussions with specialists in other fields, particularly in the humanities, to better understand the role of emotions on decision-making and problem-solving. I would be less categorical about the meaning of "the truth" and would advance transdisciplinary research. But I maintain that science is the best way to understand what life is, how it works, and how we can make the most of this knowledge to improve our living conditions.

Hi Professor Marc, thank you for the wonderful talk. It is good to know that you shared with us how you got into the field of science, plant science specifically. Now that we are in a pandemic, surely it will affect how young people decide whether they will choose plant science as a career field. My question is how can we encourage young minds to still choose plant science as a future career field, or how can we promote plant science as a relevant field during and after this pandemic? Thank you.

Yes, the pandemic has highlighted even more the importance of the medical field and will likely accentuate our cultural tradition that our brightest students are heading into medicine. We will need to redouble our efforts to convince students that many of the challenges facing humanity in this century can be met through plant science. Making the best possible progress will require exceptional people. We must adapt the traditional values of our society to our current needs in order to place plant sciences-related careers at the top of the professions to which our most capable young people aspire.

Plant science is not only essential for a sustainable food and feed production. Plant biotechnology-based industry is an emerging reality that generates economic opportunities also for healthcare, chemical, and manufacturing sectors, with far-reaching potential impacts on socio-economic developments and environment. For the medicine field, plant genetic engineering can harness endogenous metabolic pathways and the protein biosynthesis machinery to produce complex small-molecule compounds and recombinant biologicals. Indeed, the production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins, often described as molecular farming, originated from the need for safe and inexpensive biopharmaceuticals in developing countries. Plants synthesizing antigenic (vaccine) or antibody proteins can be grown using local farming techniques, only need to be partially processed, are easily transportable, and do not require refrigeration. Vaccines produced in food or feed crops effectively elicit an immune response to a particular pathogen when consumed fresh, dried, or lyophilized into a powder and reconstituted as a juice when needed. Therefore, plant-made vaccines could be easily available at low cost at remote regions of the planet.

When we understand better what life is, how it works and how it evolves, society will realize that our only chance to survive and prosper is to live in harmony with all living organisms. This awareness requires a better understanding of genetics, a discipline that has always been pushed forward by plant research.

Will it be easier to solve the damage to nature than the damages to humans such as bad/weak education?

It is not a matter of one instead of the other. Both are essential but enormous tasks. The damage we cause to nature will only finally be resolved when we have a solid education, both in the so-called hard sciences and in the social sciences. It is only when we fully understand and learn how to respect the fragility of our ecosystems that we will change our values and our behavior. I hope we will get there in time to avoid an irreversible disaster.

It is the responsibility of all of us who have had the privilege of having a good education. How can we value a good education if it is only recently - the last decade - that we have started to learn why we think as we think (epistemology). When we understand this, we will better educate ourselves and will be able to resolve conflicting situations.

To alleviate the damage we cause to nature, the first task is to educate all of society, including scientists, about the living world, about the meaning of being a living individual in the web of life and in the canvas of a multicultural human society.