An official website of the United States government
Genetically modified (GM) crops have been adopted by some of the world’s leading agricultural nations, but the full extent of their environmental impact remains largely unknown. Although concerns regarding the direct environmental effects of GM crops have declined, GM crops have led to indirect changes in agricultural practices, including pesticide use, agricultural expansion, and cropping patterns, with profound environmental implications. Recent studies paint a nuanced picture of these environmental impacts, with mixed effects of GM crop adoption on biodiversity, deforestation, and human health that vary with the GM trait and geographic scale. New GM or gene-edited crops with different traits would likely have different environmental and human health impacts.
more »
« less
Rethinking progress: harmonizing the discourse on genetically modified crops
Genetically modified crops (GM crops) also known as biotech crops are crops that have been altered through genetic engineering techniques and under cultivation for approximately 28 years. By October 2024, over 30 nations have approved the cultivation of GM crops. The global area utilized for biotech crop production has reached 206.3 million hectares. Despite the substantial growth in the cultivation of these crops, debate continues between proponents and opponents of GM crops. In this article, critical concerns and common ground between the arguments of both sides were described. The main issues addressed include the naturalness of GM crops, religious perspectives, beneficial aspects, safety issues, socio-economic impacts and intellectual property rights. We argue that the classification GM crops as unnatural is a claim that lacks scientific reality. In a similar vein, comparing GM technology to the act of playing God is inappropriate. Moreover, the belief that GM crops do not contribute to yield improvements is inconsistent with empirical evidence. Additionally, the claim that foods produced from GM crops are unsafe for human consumption holds unseen concerns that is not on the ground. We have also highlighted the necessity of implementing intellectual property rights that support seed developers for a limited duration without violating farmers’ rights. In conclusion, as a consumer has the right to know what they eat, labeling of GM food products fosters transparency and enhance consumer autonomy.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2327906
- PAR ID:
- 10661956
- Publisher / Repository:
- Frontiers
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Plant Science
- Volume:
- 16
- ISSN:
- 1664-462X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The agricultural biotechnology world has been divided into two blocks; countries adopting GM crops for commercial cultivation (adopters) and others without any or without relevant cultivation of such crops (non-adopters). Meanwhile, an increasing number of adopter countries have exempted certain genome-edited (GE) crops from legal GMO pre-market approval and labelling requirements. Among them are major exporters of agricultural commodities such as United States, Canada, and Australia. Due to the relaxed legislation more GE plants are expected to enter the market soon. Many countries in the non-adopter group, however, depend on import of large volumes of agricultural commodities from adopter countries. Unlike first generation GM, certain GE crops cannot be identified as unambiguously originating from genome editing using available techniques. Consequently, pressure is mounting on non-adopter jurisdictions to reconsider their policies and legislations. Against this backdrop, the paper explores recent developments relevant for social acceptability in selected non-adopters, Japan, New Zealand, the EU, Norway, and Switzerland in contrast to United States, Canada, and Australia. While Japan is already opening-up and Norway and Switzerland are discussing revisions of their policies, the EU and New Zealand are struggling with challenges resulting from high court decisions. In an attempt to take a closer look into the inner dynamics of these developments, the concept of social acceptability proposed by Wüstenhagen et al. (Energy Policy, 2007, 35(5), 2683–2691) is employed. This aids the understanding of developments in the jurisdictions considered and identifies specific or cross-cutting challenges.more » « less
-
Recent advances in large language models (LMs) have facilitated their ability to synthesize programming code. However, they have also raised concerns about intellectual property (IP) rights violations. Despite the significance of this issue, it has been relatively less explored. In this paper, we aim to bridge the gap by presenting CODEIPPROMPT, a platform for automatic evaluation of the extent to which code language models may reproduce licensed programs. It comprises two key components: prompts constructed from a licensed code database to elicit LMs to generate IP-violating code, and a measurement tool to evaluate the extent of IP violation of code LMs. We conducted an extensive evaluation of existing open-source code LMs and commercial products, and revealed the prevalence of IP violations in all these models. We further identified that the root cause is the substantial proportion of training corpus subject to restrictive licenses, resulting from both intentional inclusion and inconsistent license practice in the real world. To address this issue, we also explored potential mitigation strategies, including fine-tuning and dynamic token filtering. Our study provides a testbed for evaluating the IP violation issues of the existing code generation platforms and stresses the need for a better mitigation strategy.more » « less
-
Given that undergraduate engineering students are becoming more involved in research and entrepreneurial activities that can lead to the generation of intellectual property (IP), this study investigates faculty attitudes related to IP policies and practices associated with educating and guiding undergraduate students. We surveyed a sample of 143 faculty members from both engineering and entrepreneurship education to examine: (a) the extent and nature of faculty involvement in undergraduate IP; (b) issues confronting faculty as they relate to undergraduate IP; (c) ways to catalyze undergraduate involvement in the generation of IP; (d) indicators of success; (e) future changes; and (f) best practices. We found that the majority of faculty members who were involved in undergraduate IP perceived that unclear policies, a lack of information, and unclear ownership of inventions were the most significant obstacles when guiding and teaching students. Furthermore, unwritten policies, biased ownership of information toward universities, lack of legal assistance for undergraduate students placed undergraduate students in a gray area where legal policies were not sufficient. Faculty who had previously guided students through the patent process reported greater concerns about teaching students the values and the principles of protecting intellectual property than those who did not. In terms of the role universities should play in enhancing undergraduate IP generation, most participants agreed that universities should educate students about IP protection (87%) and entrepreneurship (71%). The three most highly rated success indicators in educating undergraduate IP development were the increasing number of students involved in real world innovation and invention and entrepreneurial activities and enhancing student involvement with industry. When asked how universities could mitigate issues related to student IP, six themes emerged from participants’ open-ended responses, including: university taking no claim on student IP; early education and training about intellectual property issues; consulting assistance from TTO; creation of entrepreneurial culture or ecosystem; and access to low cost legal advice. Faculty members surveyed had strong views about where potential problems occur, and fewer recommendations on what resources should be provided. From the data, it is clear that there is still much to be accomplished to clarify the extent to which universities should be involved in managing undergraduate intellectual property. With further research and understanding, best practices for undergraduate IP generation can be applied to avoid further IP challenges for faculty, students, and academic institutions.more » « less
-
Involving the public in scientific discovery offers opportunities for engagement, learning, participation, and action. Since its launch in 2007, the CitSci.org platform has supported hundreds of community-driven citizen science projects involving thousands of participants who have generated close to a million scientific measurements around the world. Members using CitSci.org follow their curiosities and concerns to develop, lead, or simply participate in research projects. While professional scientists are trained to make ethical determinations related to the collection of, access to, and use of information, citizen scientists and practitioners may be less aware of such issues and more likely to become involved in ethical dilemmas. In this era of big and open data, where data sharing is encouraged and open science is promoted, privacy and openness considerations can often be overlooked. Platforms that support the collection, use, and sharing of data and personal information need to consider their responsibility to protect the rights to and ownership of data, the provision of protection options for data and members, and at the same time provide options for openness. This requires critically considering both intended and unintended consequences of the use of platforms, data, and volunteer information. Here, we use our journey developing CitSci.org to argue that incorporating customization into platforms through flexible design options for project managers shifts the decision-making from top-down to bottom-up and allows project design to be more responsive to goals. To protect both people and data, we developed—and continue to improve—options that support various levels of “open” and “closed” access permissions for data and membership participation. These options support diverse governance styles that are responsive to data uses, traditional and indigenous knowledge sensitivities, intellectual property rights, personally identifiable information concerns, volunteer preferences, and sensitive data protections. We present a typology for citizen science openness choices, their ethical considerations, and strategies that we are actively putting into practice to expand privacy options and governance models based on the unique needs of individual projects using our platform.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1547928
