Template:BOKU-Vienna/Human Practices

Integrated Human Practices

Applications

Since our system could be used to switch any gene or combination of genes ON and OFF and we engineered it to work both in plants and in yeast, the potential uses are manifold. They reach from controlling individual genes to creating whole logical pathways. Therefore, we did a lot of brainstorming and also talked to farmers and scientists to identify some of the most useful applications.

Original Idea

The idea we started out with was that we wanted to be able to turn resistances against pests and diseases in crops on when they are needed to ensure the survival of the plants, but turn them off when they are not, in order to prevent or at least slow down the development of resistant strains. One example for this is the expression of BT by the plant. However, once we’d decided on using a toggle switch to solve this problem, we quickly realised that this kind of tool could also be used in a host of other applications.

Late frost

Therefore, we started looking for common reasons for harvest failures in news reports and one of the most devastating ones we found was late frost. This refers to a prolonged cold period in late spring, after the fruit trees have started blooming and is a growing problem in Austria and other countries in central Europe due to climate change. [1] When it happens the cold temperature kills off the blooms of the tree and thereby hinder fruit from forming. The current solution to the problem is the use of small watering systems, that spray a thin film of water on the plant which freezes and insulate the blossoms against further damage. However these watering systems, while environmentally friendly, are rather expensive and not every farmer can afford them. A local apple and wine farmer from Lower Austria, whom we interviewed to get a first hand account of this problem, shocked us when he told us that in 2016 he lost 90% of his harvest due to late frost and that he was lucky to salvage even the 10% he did. Many of his neighbouring farmers fared even worse, most of them not even able to harvest a single apple at the end of the season. Our system could help to prevent this problem, by suppressing the genes that trigger blooming until a time where late frost becomes very unlikely.

Fundamental research

When we explained the goal of our project to plant molecular biologists Jürgen Kleine-Vehn and Sascha Waidmann, because we wanted their help in working with plants they were immediately interested and pointed out that our system didn’t just have agricultural applications but could also be very useful in the lab, as it would allow the temporary repression of individual genes with only a single dose of a signal molecule. Currently this is achieved either by total knock-outs of the genes of interest, which aren’t always viable, or by permanently applying a signal molecule like ethanol or estradiol, which also influence the plants in other ways and can therefore make it difficult to distinguish between the effects of the signal molecule and the effects of the repression. While our system, at least when using signal molecules and not liposomes to deliver the signal, also uses those same signal molecules their use would be short term and the repression of the gene would persist long after the effect of the signal molecule would have worn off, which would be an improvement.

Focus Group discussion with Christoph Strasser about iGEM and responsible research and innovation.

As Christoph Strasser was writing his Bachelor Thesis about responsible research he contacted us and our PI Prof. Diethard Mattanovich with the request for a focus group discussion to get to know us and our project a bit more. Christoph’s special focus was on our work in Human Practices and how we plan on integrating it into our project design and how important it was to us and iGEM in general. He wrote the following statement about us and our project. :

wrote my bachelor thesis “The iGEM Competition in Context of the concepts Authentic Learning and Responsible Research and Innovation” from March to July 2018. In addition to a literature research I decided to investigate the research questions of my work with a case study approach. I interviewed the PI of iGEM Vienna @ BOKU, Prof. Diethard Mattanovich and did focus group discussions with the iGEM-Team of 2017 (Project: “D.I.V.E.R.T.”) and the iGEM-Team of 2018 (Project: “Robocrop”). The discussion with the Robocrop-Team took place on May, 2nd 2018. It was ascertained how the team and the project topic came about, which work steps had already been carried out and which considerations had been incorporated in the topic selection. It was thus possible to deduce which authentic learning experiences have already been made and in what form the principles of RRI have already been included. To do so, I oriented my research to the four questions on RRI, that SYNENERGENE suggested to eight iGEM teams in 2014 (STEMERDING 2015) and to the four dimensions of Authentic Learning, RULE (2016) stated. On the one hand the participation of the iGEM Team of 2018 in the focus group discussion helped me to increase the practical relevance of my bachelor thesis. As I was informed a while after the discussion, on the other hand the participation also helped the team, to be more sensitive to the questions of RRI, thus taking a step towards achieving the "Integrated Human Practices". Literature: STEMERDING, D. (2015). iGEM as Laboratory in Responsible Research and Innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 140-142, January 2015. RULE, A.C. (2006). Editorial: The Components of Authentic Learning, Journal of Authentic Learning, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp 1-10

Interview with Timo Küntzle

29th of August evening at the Siebenstern Cafe in Vienna. Meeting with Timo Küntzle talking about GMO, modern agriculture and its public debate about rising technologies and finally about the political evaluation of these new concepts.

Timo Küntzle has grown up in south-western Germany in an agriculturally influenced society. Because of such youth, it is no surprise he focused more on agricultural qualification. After finishing his studies he decided to join Journalism. Because of a documentation about the worldwide use of GMO produced this year he was the perfect interview partner.

He did a great job in showing the actual usage of GMOs in different locations all over the world with big efforts to present the pros and cons of GMOs as objectively as possible. The documentary called “Im Kontext: Schöne Neue Gentechnik - Revolution in der Landwirtschaft” was part of a bigger debate about GMOs of the journalism-collective “Addendum”. Furthermore, the docu was publicly shown at “Servus TV”.

On his journey, he had the chance to get in touch with farmers and other stakeholders who are experienced with GMO-agriculture or directly affected by their local regulations. Very interesting is the fact that he met a wide range of different farmer types.

We were positively surprised by his open-minded and optimistic argumentation about GMO in agriculture but being absolutely aware of all the risk and problems involved in practical implementations at the same time. He told us from poor Bangladesh farmers, who received free “Monsanto” seeds. Based on these expressions he was able to draw the bigger picture about an sustainable agriculture not solitarily affected by economic exploitation by global companies. After carefully assessing all the factors it was obvious to him that in many cases the chances for a sustainable, self-determined agriculture often overweight the risks involved in it. On the basis of his Twitter Timeline, we already knew he is aware of his public impact as a journalist and he is very confident in his Tweeting. In the course of the interview, we quickly noticed our similar beliefs regarding the possible utilization in the future.

It was evident that the differentiation of economic factors and technology-based factors are crucial for today's or future debates about the chances, or the risks of GMO, respectively.

As long as politicians are not able to dissociate these two a general legislation and regulation is not possible and purposeful, respectively, because a commercial launch is too expensive due to test phases etc.

After being briefed about our “ROBOCROP”- concept we were happy to see Timo be curious about its impact and further possibilities. Interestingly for us, we found out that his family which is still actively keeping a farm already uses drones to bring so-called ichneumon wasps as a organic pesticide.

Regarding the future debate and possible usage of GM-tech in Europe his conviction that in future GMO will be more common and most importantly was very astonishing According to him the international pressure and technological progress will inevitably push the European society to the point of a final debate about GMO implementations or regulations, respectively.

After 3 hours of inspiring discussion, we had covered a wide range of topics connected to our project and we are very thankful for this motivational evening. We got to know him as a kind person who has come around the world, is well informed and not afraid in speaking up.

With respect to our project, we got new insights into stakeholder related topics. It was refreshing to get in touch with an insider and his special relationship to farmers and their opinions about GMOs, respectively.

Although he is not a scientist in relevant disciplines it was pretty compelling to hear his opinions about said topics.

More Information about <a href="http://kuentzle.net/">Timo Küntzle</a>

Potential Risks and Environmental Impact

Drones

Classification of drones:

class 1:
  • Flight in direct visual contact without technical aids and within a radius of more than 500 metres and/or within a radius of operations for remuneration or commercial or non-commercial purposes other than for the purpose of the flight itself
  • An operating licence is required.
  • the technical and operational certification of unmanned aerial vehicles with an operating mass exceeding 150 kilograms falls within the scope of Union law.
class2:
  • blind flight
  • These drones are subject to the aviation regulations applicable to manned civil aircraft, such as in particular the required airworthiness certifications, registration requirements, pilot licence for the pilot, compliance with air traffic regulations and much more.
  • the technical and operational certification of unmanned aerial vehicles with an operating mass exceeding 150 kg falls within the scope of Union law.


If you want to use drones in agriculture, they must fall into either category 1 or category 2. However, our drone does not fall into either category because it is supposed to act autonomously. Apparently, a major legislative gap exist regarding our special case (e.g.autonomous drone). Either a corresponding legal text or a precedental case has to be waited or created for. A possible solution for this issue would be a modification towards a new category for special agricultural utilization or application. This is a problem in the legislation which concerns not only autonomous drones but also autonomous vehicles and therefore hopefully will be regulated in the next few years. The law finding regarding the autonomous drone is probably easier. Another important point is the environmental question. Drones can monitor the ground from the air and thus have no direct influence on ground safety. Furthermore, drones can scan the ground, the field, the weather, etc. and can therefore transmit warnings more quickly. If the drone is also equipped with a camera to scan the ground etc., there will be another problem, namely data protection. A legal framework would also have to be created for this.

Spraying agents in Agriculture

Of course we had to deal with legal issues as well. To deal with the spraying issues we called the ministry of agriculture but they forwarded us to the AGES, the austrian agency for food safety. We had an very interesting conversation on the telephone and he sent us some documents about the licensing procedure. That was important because only copper is an the list for legal spraying agents in agriculture. <a href="https://psmregister.baes.gv.at/psmregister/faces/main?_afrLoop=2100600944118707&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=ksl01x0di_4">Here</a> you can find the list. In general the regulation (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 shall apply that the european parliament and the european council forms the legal basis for the placing on market and the control of plant protection products and their active substances. This regulation shall apply in all EU-states and does not need to be changed in national law. You can find those legislative texts here. The prerequisite for approval is that all active substances have already been approved in the eu. In the pesticide database you can find all information for approving active substances, the link is <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=DE">here</a> .

If your active substance is build up by another manufacturer you have to do the so called equivalence test. This evaluation is an EU-procedure but the assessment must only be carried out by the Member State in which the application was made. If the review shows that the active substance is equivalent to the original active substance that has already been approved, they can access the active substance dossier of the approved active substance. If the review shows that the active substance is not equivalent to the original active substance, an application for authorisation of a plant protection product containing that active substance is not possible.

Application for authorisation of a plant protection product Article 33 of the regulation (EG) Nr. 1107/2009. Thereby the EU is split up in 3 zones, where the plant protection product evaluation is carried out by a zonal reporting Member State, which subsequently forms the basis for the subsequent specific evaluation and authorisation by the Member States. However, an application for authorisation must be submitted in each Member State in which the plant protection product is to be placed on the market or used. There are two ways to do this:

  • In all states where a marketing is planned, the application must be made simultaneously. The applicant proposes a Member State to carry out the assessment for the zone. The other member states must wait until this application has been examined and approved. From that date, Member States may examine the national requirements and other requirements. The deadlines for the first evaluation are one year and for the national evaluation 120 days.
  • In this case, this Member State is, of course, the zonal applicant. After authorisation has been granted, an application for mutual recognition may be made in the other Member States in accordance with Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Classification of the Zones:
  • Central zone: Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, United Kingdom
  • Northern Zone: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden
  • Southern Zone: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Croatia For field applications (excluding seed treatment products), a rapporteur Member State must be selected for each zone to carry out the assessment for that zone. In particular, the following guidelines must be observed for the zonal authorisation procedure: Zonal Evaluation and mutual recognition:<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_aas_guidance_mut_rec_en.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_aas_guidance_mut_rec_en.pdf</a>

Format template for the draft assessment report (= summary of the assessment): <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_doss_reg-report-draft.zip">http://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_doss_reg-report-draft.zip</a>

<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/guidance_documents_en">The Commission's homepage</a> , DG Healthand Consumer Protection, provides information and guidelines on the approval procedure for active ingredients and the approval procedure for plant protection products.

[1] <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6059414/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6059414/</a>

Unterberger C, Brunner L, Nabernegg S, et al. Spring frost risk for regional apple production under a warmer climate. Delzon S, ed. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0200201. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200201.