1y ago

CRISPR-edited trees reduce the energy and water required to make paper

phys.org Building a better forest tree with CRISPR gene editing

Researchers at North Carolina State University used a CRISPR gene-editing system to breed poplar trees with reduced levels of lignin, the major barrier to sustainable production of wood fibers, while improving their wood properties. The findings—published in the journal Science—hold promise to make ...

BrainWorms @lemm.ee

phys.org /news/2023-07-forest-tree-crispr-gene.html

1 0

You're viewing a single thread.

46 comments

Capitalism always finds a way...
From all the uses one could find to CRISPR, this is probably one of the dumbest.
- Is it? This seems like one of the most beneficial and least controversial uses
- Making paper? Capitalizzum. Marx would have cried if he heard people equate economy and production with capitalism.
  
  Here's my point. We live under global capitalism. It's just how things are, right?
  And capitalism, just like, say, life, has its ways. It creates an environment where certain outcomes are more likely than others.
  Making an observation about it does not make me partial to other systems. I have no such preference. What I observe is just that capitalism, just like life, always finds a way—its way.
  I heard someone mentioned the danger of using CRISPR to make better soldiers. It's crazy, right? But why isn't crazy to tinker with a tree? Yes, it may make those trees a better product. And all seems good. But once you do that to the tree, and it becomes profitable, the incentive is there to make that true for everything else.
  I think it's dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.
  Perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture. Or maybe I should take some bioethics class again.
  But whatever may be the case, my point is not there all proletariat the world over should unite.
  
  I mean I guess one of the biggest arguments for gene editing is that humans have been modifying the genetics of plants and animals for thousands of years, to the great benefit of humankind. While this was through selective breeding, gene editing is fundamentally a very similar ethical question.
  Without genetic modification, it would have been beyond impossible to feed everyone, or even get somewhat past subsistence farming.
  Modifying humans, however, is a totally different question to mosifying trees.
  
  Dogs are a good example of how wonderful our selective breeding has been. Well, it's great for us, no doubt. Who doesn't love a tiny tiny dog? But for the dog? Probably not the best.
  Cool, we have better paper making factories with better trees for the purpose. But what about all the unknown unknowns of changing the genes of the tree? How will that affect the environment? Is this carefully tested, monitored, giving it enough time to truly understand the consequences? Or are we just breeding a nice cute little dog again, without caring about what happens to the thing modified?
  You see, this has nothing to do with taking sides. I wonder. Just that. And yeah, it still feels dumb to me. But being no expert, perhaps reality will prove me wrong. I do hope so, because I hope for a brighter future, not a gloomy one.
  
  I agree that it seems like there should be some sort of tradeoff for editing genetics. It's hard to say how these types of trees might affect aspects of the environment, such as soil composition or the surrounding wildlife. With that being said, I eat genetically modified food every day, so what do I know.
  
  I think it’s dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.
  Why? Is this a religious statement? If it betters the world then that's it, it should be used. CRISPR is just a technology for editing genes, it's not some sacred tool that should have arbitrary restrictions, or a nuclear weapon. If the utility of using it is positive why not?
  Most of our crops, that we rely to feed the world today would be barely usable for consumption before we domesticated them. Same with fruits and plenty of other food sources, like cattle.
  You mentioned little dogs in another comment, and while some will have more issues, others have rather long lifespans for dogs (chihuahuas). Important thing is, this is what happened when we had no idea or precise control of what we were doing, which we have now with gene editing. Can't get more precise than that. I also think this objection is moot since trees don't think and therefore don't experience suffering in the way animals do, unless you think your flowers scream in terror whenever you forget to water them, this isn't even a moral conundrum.
  Edit: leaving this in to clarify what I'm responding to.
  without caring about what happens to the thing modified?
  
  Mate, I don't know or care about the other guy's insults, but don't you think unspecifically attributing the word to the US's terribly managed economy is getting cringe and worse muddying the water. I've seen a super posh actress who's famous for being posh (nobility on both sides of the family) complain (in character) about it on a trailer for a major movie coming out soon.
  Not to say criticism is cringe, but while I might be wrong, something seems to be missing.
  
  Thank you for commenting.
  I'm not US based. Perhaps I have a way of using capitalism that rubs some people the wrong way. Not my intention, but I brought it up. So it's on me.
  I see capitalism as a state of affairs. I live under it as other peoples at other times lived under a different set of conditions. I'm not trying to pick up a fight.
- Did you read the article? They're just reducing the lignin content in the wood so it's easier to process cellulose. I don't understand where you see the difference to let's say selective breeding to produce bigger and sweeter fruits. CRISPR is just an optimised and probably better results promising alternative to the massive amounts of trial and error we had to go through to isolate promising genetic traits.
  
  Thank you for engaging! This is what makes Lemmy such a great platform. It’s people like you who engage in a meaningful way.
  Now, you raise a good point. Did I read the article? Well, I’ve cut the middleperson, and went straight to the paper. The Editor’s summary has this to say:
  This work demonstrates that genome editing can be harnessed for breeding more efficient trees, which will provide timely opportunities for sustainable forestry and a more efficient bioeconomy.
  Which means ‘more efficient’ to us. To our understanding of efficiency. At face-value, I’m sold to the benefits. Economy-wise, it looks great. But it still bothers me. Something something about ‘the greater picture’. That’s why I mentioned in another reply that I probably have to update my view on bioethics. It’s been a while since I gave it a careful consideration. I may be missing the the forest for the trees… (dad joke).
  
  I see your concerns. I think we can't avoid using our land. The alternative would be not existing. Also we have to agree that most people demand a degree of consumerism that puts a strain on the resources we have. That's the reality we face. Paper is a very necessary good and probably will be forever. The production of paper is resource intensive. Removing lignin would reduce our demand of resources.
  I don't see big poplar forests with the whole purpose of harvesting cellulose as that problematic if we keep in mind that this also gives more space for habitats we have to protect.What this research promises is that we can make the best of what we have because that is all we have left after we ravaged the planet and are not willing to stop that.
  
  What's not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that's usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about "breeding", so maybe it is the case here. The phrase "building a better forest" is particularly disturbing as well.
  My concern here is basically that we don't want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 "optimal" genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn't.
  So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it's probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don't want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.

46 comments