Crispr-edited crop research could be crippled by European Court ruling
Plant scientists have reacted with shock, even anger, to the July decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on gene editing. The court ruled that any gene edited plant was a genetically modified organism (GMO) and fell under onerous 2001 EU regulations.
Researchers are now warning that the ECJ ruling could cripple European funding for Crispr–Cas9 gene editing in crop science. This ruling ‘will have a profound impact on the academic research community in the EU’, says Maurice Moloney, chief executive of the Global Institute for Food Security in Canada. ‘Europe will be the laughing stock of innovation in food and agriculture in the next decade.’
Gene editing can make targeted changes to DNA, but was deemed by the ECJ to be as risky as GMOs. Meanwhile, mutations caused by chemicals or radiation remain exempt under the 2001 legislation, because crops have been developed this way since the 1940s.
‘It is like abandoning a scalpel in favour of a shotgun for surgery,’ warns Holger Puchta, a plant biochemist at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. ‘Europe is uncoupling itself from the biggest revolution biology has seen in the last 30 years.’ Moloney adds that ‘it is an absurd ruling’, which states that ‘a single known mutation is risky, [but] an entirely mutated and unmapped genome is natural and thus safe’.
Plant scientists have criticised the 2001 GMO regulations for causing a decline in research funding in previous EU Framework programmes, including Horizon 2020. This could happen again for the forthcoming Horizon Europe plan. Framework programmes, which involve collaborative projects between academics and sometimes industry, is how most EU research funding is allocated. They must promise real-world impact.
No route to market
‘Framework-type programmes require a justification of pathways to impact, which includes commercialisation. If there is no prospect of commercialisation in the EU, you get a zero score here and the grant application is declined,’ says Moloney. Horizon Europe funding may therefore largely ignore the potential of Crispr–Cas9 to improve crops.
‘The EU and several national European funding agencies have set up programmes to implement the Crispr–Cas technology for the breeding of different crop plants in the expectation of a positive ECJ ruling,’ says Puchta. He expects to see virtually no new calls at national or European level in this area.
Others agree. Genetic modification of plants was supported in early framework programmes, but funding dried up due to politics, says Johnathan Napier, a crop scientist at Rothamsted Research, UK, who has headed research on GM camelina. ‘Do a word search of the recent Horizon 2020 calls for GM or transgenesis and you will find nothing.’
Rendering commercialisation difficult will undercut arguments for basic research funding using Crispr too. ‘Why should taxpayers pay for plant science when all the practical uses would be outside the EU?’ asks Stefan Jansson, plant scientist at Umeå University in Sweden, who foresees gene editing of crops becoming harder and more expensive in the EU – although Sweden may continue to fund it.
Read more HERE.