1

Biotecnologia y actualizacion

Tres áreas donde Zamorano debe tomar liderazgo intelectual, investigación y desarrollo .... el futuro incluye
esto.

1) Biotecnología y la Bioeconomia... aunque muchos segmentos de la población en Europa y Asia estén

opuestos a los cultivos y organismos geneticamente mejorados, aun asi han invertido millones de Euros en el
desarrollo de la bioeconomia. Bienvenidos al nuevo mundo de la biotecnología y la
bioeconomia. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/spider-silk-shoes-algae-fuel-biotech-future/?
utm_content=bufferf7083&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

2) Intensificación sostenible. EARTH nos gano el mandado de la conservación de la biodiversidad y

sostenibilidad. Ahora se trata de retomar el liderazgo produciendo de manera mas intensiva pero sostenible.

3) Grandes datos, automatización e integración.... Tenemos que agarrar el sarten por el mando y ver como
reducir el impacto social de estas innovaciones....

From spider silk shoes to algae fuel, welcome to the new age of biotech
 2

Science makes fact out of fiction, changing our lives through new technologies. But it’s a long road
from invention to adoption. Only when a technology becomes affordable and ubiquitous enough
can it usually begin to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems.

We are approaching this tipping point in biofabrication, the science of using living organisms to
build with biology and make everyday products. For the first time, it’s becoming inexpensive
enough to unlock the wonders of biology, not just for pharmacological or industrial uses, where
we’ve seen tremendous advances in the past few decades, but directly for consumers in a host of
different ways.

A new era has arrived, one where we can harness biological organisms to create consumer
materials that grow themselves. Materials that combine the best of nature and the best of
science, while reducing the enormous strain of current production practices on our planet’s finite
resources.

How did we get here?

The first commercial computers were enormous, cost a fortune and calculated at a glacial speed
by today’s standards. Yet, they had huge ramifications for customers with mission-critical needs
(and deep enough pockets). NASA leveraged early IBM mainframes to vault ahead in the space
race and land the first man on the moon.

In the decades to come, we watched Moore’s Law hold true: transistors per square inch on
integrated circuits continued to double every year-and-a-half, driving down costs and
democratizing access to computing power.

Today, the basic toolkit of computer science is accessible to just about anyone. Through our
smartphones, we all have supercomputers in our pockets, and a billion-dollar idea can be
conceived of and coded almost overnight.

We are marching down a similar path towards widespread adoption of the biological toolkit and
the ramifications could be equally far-reaching. Just as a computer uses binary code of 0s and 1s to
process information, the basic building blocks of biotechnology are DNA base pairs — specifically,
the ability to read and write them in their code of A, T, G and C.

In the 21st century, the drop in DNA sequencing costs — a trend called the Carlson Curve, named
after Dr Rob Carlson — has outpaced even Moore’s Law. As the costs of working with DNA have
dropped, the opportunities have soared.
3
 4

Examples of biotechnology successes are plentiful. After the invention of recombinant DNA in
1973 the technology improved and costs dropped, leading to viable applications in crop
production, pharmacology, and diverse industries.

Amgen, for example, harnessed recombinant DNA to clone, express and produce drugs starting in
the 1980s. Its product Neupogen, a white blood cell boosting drug that helps cancer and HIV
patients stave off infections, was approved for medical use in the USA in 1991 and is now on the
World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Various other industrial applications have
proliferated, from biodegradable plastics to biofuels.

In agriculture, the first genetically modified crop was a tobacco plant modified for antibiotic
resistance in 1982. Commercialization of engineered crops began in earnest a decade later when
the US Department of Agriculture approved the FLAVR SAVR tomato, which was genetically
modified to be more resistant to rot. Since then, the surge of engineered crops has been
profound: between 1996 and 2015, more than two billion cumulative hectares of biotech crops
were cultivated — that’s equivalent to more than twice the total landmass of the United States.
5
 6

Image: Gabriel Rangel, Biological Sciences in Public Health Program at Harvard University
7
 8

2012 data

Image: Dr. Robert Carlson — his article in Nature

All of these specialized applications are so successful they can support huge fixed costs. Perhaps
they are biotechnology’s shot at reaching the moon. A life-or-death drug can command a vast R&D
budget, while a genetically-modified crop variant can reap rewards indefinitely after large upfront
development costs.

We stand on the precipice of widespread consumer adoption of biotechnology — a new category

unto itself that will grow alongside medical, agricultural and industrial applications. We can now
competitively biofabricate everyday materials.
9
 10

Image: Steve Jurvetson, with adaptations by the author

Where are we headed?

As Eben Bayer, CEO and co-founder of Ecovative, which grows packaging from agricultural waste,
described it in a recent WSJ podcast: “We are at the tipping point, like where we were in, say,
1980 with the personal computer: you have the ability to programme organisms through DNA and
CRISPR control advancing so quickly – and I think we’re going to have an avalanche of grown
materials, whether it’s leather, packaging or growing furniture (…) [and] then the next step will be
biofabricated products that have functions.” 

Welcome to the era of consumer biotech.

This will extend to all sorts of materials grown in a laboratory: plant-based food products
engineered to taste like real meat, potentially grown with the same proteins that you would find in
the animal; and shoes, neckties, jackets and other wearables made from biofabricated spider silk.
We could see living concrete that deploys microorganisms to self-repair cracks that form over
time. After fits and starts from biofuel companies striving to create energy-producing algae and
microorganisms at massive scale, we have recently seen signs of progress.

This personal contact with biotechnology will extend to all sorts of materials grown in a laboratory:
plant-based food products engineered to taste like real meat, potentially grown with the same
proteins that you would find in the animal; and shoes, neckties, jackets and other wearables made
from biofabricated spider silk. We could see living concrete that deploys microorganisms to self-
repair cracks that form over time. After fits and starts from biofuel companies striving to create
energy-producing algae and microorganisms at massive scale, we have recently seen signs of
progress.

Have you read?

 Biotechnology: what it is and how it's about to change our lives

 What is biofabrication?

 Will biotechnology provide food security?

The next step will be a transition from imitation to pure innovation: materials and products that
aren’t just produced in a new way, but exhibit qualities that don’t yet exist in nature at all. 

These spider silk companies envision materials as soft as silk but more durable. Companies like
Impossible Foods are starting with burger taste-alikes, but their loftiest visions involve
biofabricating new flavours altogether. Researchers are even working on engineering a plant that
changes colour in the presence of explosives. 

All of this progress in consumer biotech is predicated on the declining costs of working with DNA.
In our laboratory, we edit cells’ DNA many times over, screening through thousands of variants to
pick the Olympic athletes that exhibit better properties for our materials. Until recently, business
strategies like ours, seen throughout the consumer biotech industry, were simply cost-prohibitive. 
 11

In the decade to come, we will witness the full implications of consumer biotech. A host of new
companies will harness the power of nature to create materials in an environmentally sustainable
way and without harming animals. In so doing, we will be exploiting the world’s oldest, most
accomplished tools – biology and human ingenuity – to develop everyday products that can ignite
our imaginations.

Share

   

Written by

Andras Forgacs, CEO, Modern Meadow

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic
Forum.

Science makes fact out of fiction, changing our lives through new
technologies. But it’s a long road from invention to adoption. Only when a
technology becomes affordable and ubiquitous enough can it usually
begin to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems.

We are approaching this tipping point in biofabrication, the science of

using living organisms to build with biology and make everyday products.
For the first time, it’s becoming inexpensive enough to unlock the
wonders of biology, not just for pharmacological or industrial uses, where
we’ve seen tremendous advances in the past few decades, but directly
for consumers in a host of different ways.

A new era has arrived, one where we can harness biological organisms to
create consumer materials that grow themselves. Materials that combine
the best of nature and the best of science, while reducing the enormous
strain of current production practices on our planet’s finite resources.

How did we get here?

The first commercial computers were enormous, cost a fortune and
calculated at a glacial speed by today’s standards. Yet, they had huge
ramifications for customers with mission-critical needs (and deep enough
pockets). NASA leveraged early IBM mainframes to vault ahead in the
space race and land the first man on the moon.
 12

In the decades to come, we watched Moore’s Law hold true: transistors

per square inch on integrated circuits continued to double every year-and-
a-half, driving down costs and democratizing access to computing power.

Today, the basic toolkit of computer science is accessible to just about

anyone. Through our smartphones, we all have supercomputers in our
pockets, and a billion-dollar idea can be conceived of and coded almost
overnight.

We are marching down a similar path towards widespread adoption of the

biological toolkit and the ramifications could be equally far-reaching. Just
as a computer uses binary code of 0s and 1s to process information, the
basic building blocks of biotechnology are DNA base pairs — specifically,
the ability to read and write them in their code of A, T, G and C.

In the 21st century, the drop in DNA sequencing costs — a trend called
the Carlson Curve, named after Dr Rob Carlson — has outpaced even
Moore’s Law. As the costs of working with DNA have dropped, the
opportunities have soared.
13
 14

Examples of biotechnology successes are plentiful. After the invention of

recombinant DNA in 1973 the technology improved and costs dropped,
leading to viable applications in crop production, pharmacology, and
diverse industries.

Amgen, for example, harnessed recombinant DNA to clone, express and

produce drugs starting in the 1980s. Its product Neupogen, a white blood
cell boosting drug that helps cancer and HIV patients stave off infections,
was approved for medical use in the USA in 1991 and is now on the
World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Various other
industrial applications have proliferated, from biodegradable plastics to
biofuels.

In agriculture, the first genetically modified crop was a tobacco plant

modified for antibiotic resistance in 1982. Commercialization of
engineered crops began in earnest a decade later when the US
Department of Agriculture approved the FLAVR SAVR tomato, which was
genetically modified to be more resistant to rot. Since then, the surge of
engineered crops has been profound: between 1996 and 2015, more than
two billion cumulative hectares of biotech crops were cultivated — that’s
equivalent to more than twice the total landmass of the United States.
15
 16

Image: Gabriel Rangel, Biological Sciences in Public Health Program at Harvard

University
17
 18

2012 data
Image: Dr. Robert Carlson — his article in Nature

All of these specialized applications are so successful they can support

huge fixed costs. Perhaps they are biotechnology’s shot at reaching the
moon. A life-or-death drug can command a vast R&D budget, while a
genetically-modified crop variant can reap rewards indefinitely after large
upfront development costs.

We stand on the precipice of widespread consumer adoption of

biotechnology — a new category unto itself that will grow alongside
medical, agricultural and industrial applications. We can now
competitively biofabricate everyday materials.
19
 20

Image: Steve Jurvetson, with adaptations by the author

Where are we headed?

As Eben Bayer, CEO and co-founder of Ecovative, which grows
packaging from agricultural waste, described it in a recent WSJ podcast:
“We are at the tipping point, like where we were in, say, 1980 with the
personal computer: you have the ability to programme organisms through
DNA and CRISPR control advancing so quickly – and I think we’re going
to have an avalanche of grown materials, whether it’s leather, packaging
or growing furniture (…) [and] then the next step will be biofabricated
products that have functions.” 

Welcome to the era of consumer biotech.

This will extend to all sorts of materials grown in a laboratory: plant-based

food products engineered to taste like real meat, potentially grown with
the same proteins that you would find in the animal; and shoes, neckties,
jackets and other wearables made from biofabricated spider silk. We
could see living concrete that deploys microorganisms to self-repair
cracks that form over time. After fits and starts from biofuel companies
striving to create energy-producing algae and microorganisms at massive
scale, we have recently seen signs of progress.

This personal contact with biotechnology will extend to all sorts of

materials grown in a laboratory: plant-based food products engineered to
taste like real meat, potentially grown with the same proteins that you
would find in the animal; and shoes, neckties, jackets and other
wearables made from biofabricated spider silk. We could see living
concrete that deploys microorganisms to self-repair cracks that form over
time. After fits and starts from biofuel companies striving to create energy-
producing algae and microorganisms at massive scale, we have recently
seen signs of progress.

Have you read?

 Biotechnology: what it is and how it's about to change our lives

 What is biofabrication?

 Will biotechnology provide food security?

 21

The next step will be a transition from imitation to pure innovation:

materials and products that aren’t just produced in a new way, but exhibit
qualities that don’t yet exist in nature at all. 

These spider silk companies envision materials as soft as silk but more
durable. Companies like Impossible Foods are starting with burger taste-
alikes, but their loftiest visions involve biofabricating new flavours
altogether. Researchers are even working on engineering a plant that
changes colour in the presence of explosives. 

All of this progress in consumer biotech is predicated on the declining

costs of working with DNA. In our laboratory, we edit cells’ DNA many
times over, screening through thousands of variants to pick the Olympic
athletes that exhibit better properties for our materials. Until recently,
business strategies like ours, seen throughout the consumer biotech
industry, were simply cost-prohibitive. 

In the decade to come, we will witness the full implications of consumer

biotech. A host of new companies will harness the power of nature to
create materials in an environmentally sustainable way and without
harming animals. In so doing, we will be exploiting the world’s oldest,
most accomplished tools – biology and human ingenuity – to develop
everyday products that can ignite our imaginations.

Share
   

Written by

Andras Forgacs, CEO, Modern Meadow

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World
Economic Forum.
22
23
24
 25

Biotechnology: what it is and how it's about to change our lives

This article is part of the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils

Biotechnology - technology that uses living organisms to make products - could soon allow us to
conjure up products as diverse as household cleaning products, organs for transplant and cleaner
renewable fuels.  Sang Yup Lee, Distinguished Professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science
and Technology, and co-chair of the Global Future Council on Biotechnologies, explains how
biotechnology is poised to change our lives, and why it could one day be as commonplace as
having a cellphone or a tablet.

For people who are not familiar with biotechnologies, what are they and how do they impact
our lives?

Biotechnology is a broad range of technologies that employ living organisms or parts of them to
make diverse products. For example, drugs and therapeutics, nutritional compounds,
environmentally friendly chemicals and materials, biofuels, and novel functional materials can be
produced through biotechnology. More broadly, medical biotechnology, agricultural
biotechnology and industrial biotechnology will all play increasingly important roles in our
everyday life. Biotechnology can also be employed to degrade toxic or harmful chemicals and
agents to solve environmental problems.
 26

Your council will focus on developments in biotechnologies. What impact do you hope the
council can have in the global conversation?

Like all technologies, biotechnology offers the potential of enormous benefit but also potential
risks.

Biotechnology could help address many global problems, such as climate change, an aging society,
food security, energy security and infectious diseases, to name just a few.

Our council intends to build a map of these global problems, which will show which
biotechnologies could help with each global challenge. To do that, we will also take into
consideration a realistic timeline, potential risks involved and other factors. Hopefully, the result
will be a state-of-the-art biotechnology vision report that includes not only policy suggestions but
also in depth information for both experts and the public.

What are these risks? What will the council do to avoid them?

Just like other emerging technologies, we cannot predict with absolute certainty the risks with
biotechnology.

For example, synthetic biology is already contributing very much to the development of many
biological systems producing drugs, chemicals and fuels without using fossil resources. However, if
misused, synthetic biology can generate biological and chemical materials that are harmful to
human beings as well as the environment.

Genome editing, especially when it is performed on people, will always carry ethical questions.

There are also questions in biofuels, ICT-based monitoring and diagnostics, and so on.

All these risks and challenges need to be addressed through dialogues among stakeholders
including policy makers, experts, the public, and NGOs to map the risks and solutions. That is
definitely one of the things The Global Future Council on Biotechnology will be studying by
employing diverse expertise of council members and through dialogues with cross-council
members and other stakeholders.

What else needs to be done to advance/speed up the development of bio-technologies? Where

is it most relevant/important?

We need to see continued efforts in research as there are still many unknowns about living
organisms. In depth research on cells, multi-cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and even
communities of organisms would lead to better understanding of them and ultimately to develop
better biotechnological applications.

Regulation is another place where we need to see advances. We need to ensure safety and
security through regulation, but at the same time make sure we aren’t putting unnecessary
hurdles in place which slow down progress. The only way we are going to achieve that is through a
strong dialogue among all the stakeholders.

What are the big trends in biotechnologies right now? What are you excited about?

There are so many exciting things happening thanks to the rapid advances in biotechnology.
 27

The genome editing of living organisms, including microorganisms, plants and animals, is exciting
for many potential applications. With these advances, we could enhance bio-based chemicals
production, increase food production and maintain a better nutritional value, or we could
manufacture organs for transplant.

Metabolic engineering and synthetic biology are advancing very rapidly as well. That has led to the
production of many chemicals, fuels and materials from renewable biomass, rather than
depending on fossil resources.

We’re seeing some amazing developments in healthcare and the medical sector as well. New,
highly complex natural compounds from bio-sources are becoming suitable for pharmaceutical
purposes. Stem-cell therapy, ICT-integrated biotechnology, and many others will help address the
health challenges brought on by an aging population.

Where do you think biotechnologies will be by 2030?

Biotechnology will become as common as having a cellphone or going online. There is going to be
an even larger number of biotech companies, both big and small, along with an increasing number
of venture companies.

In small villages or even at home, biotechnology might be used, just like in Science Fiction novels.
You might simply ask a machine to make some household chemicals you need, rather than go buy
it at the supermarket. Biotech trash converters could do away with waste.

Biotechnology could also help to tackle large national issues such as healthcare. Global healthcare
spending, currently, is about 8 trillion US dollars. That price tag could be as high as we have to go,
thanks to biotechnology. Even as the population grows, costs shouldn’t increase thanks to
technologies such as efficient disease prevention and wellbeing programmes, precision medicine,
genome editing, organ production, and stem-cell therapy. I think all of these will become rather
routine.

So by 2030, I think it is realistic to say that biotechnology will become a part of our life, from drugs,
medicine and therapeutics to environmentally friendly chemicals, fuels and materials.
 28

What is biofabrication?

Science is catching up to science fiction. Last year a paralysed man walked again after cell
treatment bridged a gap in his spinal cord. Dozens of people have had bionic eyes implanted, and
it may also be possible to augment them to see into the infra-red or ultra-violet. Amputees can
control bionic limb implant with thoughts alone.

Meanwhile, we are well on the road to printing body parts.

We are witnessing a reshaping of the clinical landscape wrought by the tools of technology. The
transition is giving rise to a new breed of engineer, one trained to bridge the gap between
engineering on one side and biology on the other.

Enter the “biofabricator”. This is a role that melds technical skills in materials, mechatronics and
biology with the clinical sciences.

21st century career

If you need a new body part, it’s the role of the biofabricator to build it for you. The concepts are
new, the technology is groundbreaking. And the job description? It’s still being written.
 29

It is a vocation that’s already taking off in the US though. In 2012, Forbes rated biomedical
engineering (equivalent to biofabricator) number one on its list of the 15 most valuable college
majors. The following year, CNN and payscale.comcalled it the “best job in America”.

These conclusions were based on things like salary, job satisfaction and job prospects, with the US
Bureau of Labour Statistics projecting a massive growth in the number of biomedical engineering
jobs over the next ten years.

Meanwhile, Australia is blazing its own trail. As the birthplace of the multi-channel Cochlear
implant, Australia already boasts a worldwide reputation in biomedical implants. Recent clinical
breakthroughs with an implanted titanium heel and jawbone reinforce Australia’s status as a
leader in the field.

I’ve recently helped establish the world’s first international Masters courses for biofabrication,
ready to arm the next generation of biofabricators with the diverse array of skills needed to 3D
print parts for bodies.

These skills go beyond the technical; the job also requires the ability to communicate with
regulators and work alongside clinicians. The emerging industry is challenging existing business
models.

Life as a biofabricator

Day to day, the biofabricator is a vital cog in the research machine. They work with clinicians to
create a solution to clinical needs, and with biologists, materials and mechatronic engineers to
deliver them.

Biofabricators are naturally versatile. They are able to discuss clinical needs pre-dawn, device
physics with an electrical engineer in the morning, stem cell differentiation with a biologist in the
afternoon and a potential financier in the evening. Not to mention remaining conscious of
regulatory matters and social engagement.

Our research at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES) is only made
possible through the work of a talented team of biofabricators. They help with the conduits we are
building to regrow severed nerves, to the electrical implant designed to sense an imminent
epileptic seizure and stop it before it occurs, to the 3D printed cartilage and bone implants
fashioned to be a perfect fit at the site of injury.

As the interdisciplinary network takes shape, we see more applications every week. Researchers
have only scratched the surface of what is possible for wearable or implanted sensors to keep tabs
on an outpatient’s vitals and beam them back to the doctor.

Meanwhile, stem cell technology is developing rapidly. Developing the cells into tissues and organs
will require prearrangement of cells in appropriate 3D environments and custom designed
bioreactors mimicking the dynamic environment inside the body.

Imagine the ability to arrange stem cells in 3D surrounded by other supporting cells and with
growth factors distributed with exquisite precision throughout the structure, and to systematically
probe the effect of those arrangements on biological processes. Well, it can already be done.
 30

Those versed in 3D bioprinting will enable these fundamental explorations.

Future visions

Besides academic research, biofabricators will also be invaluable to medical device companies in
designing new products and treatments. Those engineers with an entrepreneurial spark will look
to start spin-out companies of their own. The more traditional manufacturing business model will
not cut it.

As 3D printing evolves, it is becoming obvious that we will require dedicated printing systems for
particular clinical applications. The printer in the surgery for cartilage regeneration will be
specifically engineered for the task at hand, with only critical variables built into a robust and
reliable machine.

Appropriately trained individuals will also find roles in the public service, ideally in regulatory
bodies or community engagement.

For this job of tomorrow, we must train today and new opportunities are emerging biofab-
masters-degree. We must cut across the traditional academic boundaries that slow down such
advances. We must engage with the community of traditional manufacturers that have skills that
can be built upon for next generation industries.

Australia is also well placed to capitalise on these emerging industries. We have a traditional
manufacturing sector that is currently in flux, an extensive advanced materials knowledge base
built over decades, a dynamic additive fabrication skills base and a growing alternative business
model environment.

This article was originally published on  The Conversation. Read the  original article. Publication
does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

To keep up with the Agenda  subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Author:  Gordon Wallace  is Executive Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials
Science and Director of the Intelligent Polymer Research Institute at  University of Wollongong.

Image:  Professor Hugh Herr, who heads the Biomechatronics research group at the MIT Media
Lab, stands amid mannequins displaying various bionic limbs his lab has
developed.  REUTERS/Brian Snyder.

Share
 31

Will biotechnology provide food security?

According to David Lawrence, biotechnology, like all technologies, is not in itself good or bad. It’s
what we do with it that decides

The way we human beings behave can be strange. For at least 30 years I used to give talks which
included a slide showing how population increase was reducing the land available to feed an
individual, pointing out that unless we changed something, at some point we would run the risk of
not being able to feed everyone on the planet. Every few years I would update it, and while the
trends continued as predicted, no one seemed to want to pay any attention. Historic stocks were
depleted, the rich ate more, and more people fell into hunger.

It was really only in 2008, when food prices rose, that it caught the attention of policy-makers and
the general public. This resulted in detailed analyses of the challenge such as the United Kingdom
Foresight Team, and scientists pointing out that years of declining funding for agriculture, even in
countries with a large agro-economy such as the United States, needed to be reversed if the
challenges were to be overcome.

However, even though it is widely accepted that we will need to produce about 50% more food to
feed the predicted population of more than 9 billion in 2050 – arguably more, if Asia moves more
to a high-calorie, high-meat diet such as that of the United States – much of the debate has
become highly polarized. This can only hinder us in overcoming the challenge. Single-interest
 32

groups almost deify their own technical approach and demonize other approaches. Regrettably
this is also true of many scientists, who seek to obtain funding and support for their own work by
denigrating alternative approaches.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than with genetically modified (GM) crops, where the spectrum
of views runs from a threat to destroy the natural world to the only solution to the food crisis.
Scientists who support GM all too often lay aside their science-based risk assessment in arguing
that this technology can replace chemical controls, which are “bad”.

What we know is that intensive agriculture has been amazingly successful in providing better
quality food, at lower cost, year on year. However, this has come at a price. We are losing soil
structure and soil carbon, and these are associated with reduced yield. In addition, food
production is a net energy consumer and greenhouse gas emitter. However, we must find ways to
reduce the net energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions, and restore soil health if we are to
produce enough food for everyone over many generations.

The solution pushed most fervently is to move to organic agriculture. There is certainly evidence
this can improve soil carbon, but when lower yield and the associated greenhouse gas emissions of
manure are taken into account it often has a higher carbon footprint.

We need much more informed discussion – rather than mere dogma – on output, energy use and
environmental impact and whether technology can satisfy these needs best. This has proven
difficult, as there is no satisfactory mechanism of global governance of agriculture, but there are
some promising initiatives, including the World Economic Forum’s “New Vision for Agriculture”
and the Keystone Alliance “field to market”.

Unhelpful polarization is also visible in the debate on biofuels, industrial biotechnology and the
non-food uses of agriculture. It is not as if it is a new phenomenon. Over millennia people have
used plant fibres as a source of clothing, burned plant material for cooking and heating, and used
plants as building materials. The oldest example of industrial biotechnology must surely be
brewing, using yeast to convert plant sugars.

Over time humans have learned to find ways of carrying out these activities in places and ways
that do not directly compete with food. We need experimentation to find out which biofuel
approaches produce the best energy return and least impact on food – surprisingly, perhaps, this
is not at all obvious. It is highly unlikely that we could ever produce even all of our transport fuel
needs from biofuels, but the chances are, given time and innovation, it will be possible to satisfy a
significant portion of our energy needs through solar radiation intercepted through plants, and at
the same time reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Biotechnology, like all technologies, is not in itself good or bad. It is what we do with it that
decides. We have the opportunity, through recently acquired knowledge, to greatly expand our
use of biotechnology to address some of our main challenges. Success will require innovation and
clever application: fear and dogma will lead only to failure.

Author: David Lawrence is Non-Executive Director of Syngenta AG, Member of the Corporate
Responsibility Committee and Chairman of the Science and Technology Advisory Board and
Member of the  World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Biotechnology
 33

Image:  A stalk of wheat is pictured at the Nebraska University in Lincoln REUTERS/Carlos Barria