<p>The reduced need for fertilizer would <strong>lower growing costs</strong> globally, especially given the dramatic rise in fertilizer prices in recent years. <ahref="#cite7"style="color: #185A4F;">[7]</a> This impact would be even <strong>more significant in countries with lower food security and limited access to mineral nitrogen fertilizers.</strong> At the same time, theoretically, crop yields would remain high compared to conventional fertilizer use, allowing for more sustainable food production to meet the demands of a growing population.</p>
<p>Now we can briefly return to our question <strong>‘Is our idea a techno-fix?’</strong> and <strong>how we can respond to the practical criticism on techno-fixes</strong>. With the benefits listed above we thought a potential nitrogen-fixing crop could serve as a solution to the narrowed nitrogen pollution and sustainable agriculture problem described before. This answers to the <strong>first practical criticism</strong> listed in Scott D’s paper that says techno-fixes don’t serve as a solution.</p>
<divclass="h2">Actor map</div>
<p>Stakeholders are all individuals or institutions that have an interest connected to our self-fertilizing plant technology. Below is a power-interest grid with the most important identified stakeholders associated with our project in the Netherlands.</p>
<p>Stakeholders are <strong>all individuals or institutions that have an interest connected to our self-fertilizing plant technology.</strong> Below is a power-interest grid with the most important identified stakeholders associated with our project in the Netherlands. . Stakeholders were identified based on literature review. There position on the map represents how much they are affected by the nitrogen problem and our solution (interest) and how much change they can achieve to solve the problem (power).</p>
<figcaption><strong>Figure 3. Actor map</strong></br>A is a power-interest grid with the most important identified stakeholders associated with our project in the Netherlands. </figcaption>
</div>
<divclass="h2">Values</div>
<p>The identified/relevant values were food security, accessibility, social/environmental sustainability, safety. The value hierarchy of the two most important values safety and accessibility can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5 as an example.</p>
<p>The identified/relevant values were <strong>food security, accessibility, social/environmental sustainability, safety.</strong> The value hierarchy of the two most important values safety and accessibility can be seen in <strong>Figure 4</strong> and <strong>Figure 5</strong> as an example.</p>
<figcaption><strong>Figure 4. Visualising the value hierarchy for the value safety.</strong></br> The value hierarchy was made from top to bottom. The norms derived from the value safety and design requirements derived from these norms.</figcaption>
</div>
<p>Safety was found to be an important value for the European Union but also to the Dutch Government and the public. Safety can be divided into environmental and food safety. During our HP work we mostly dived deeper into the question of environmental safety related to our idea. Figure 3 shows how norms such as ‘No risk for the environment derives from the value safety and what are the certain design requirements such as ‘the genetically modified (GM) plant shouldn’t outcompete native species’ to satisfy those norms in our design. We later rediscussed these design requirements and modified them according to the information we gathered from interviews we conducted. Making design choices related to safety were difficult. The design requirements for safety often clashed with the ones derived from accessibility. This is discussed later.</p>
<p><strong>Safety</strong> was found to be an important value for the <strong>European Union</strong> but also to the <strong>Dutch Government</strong> and the public. Safety can be divided into environmental and food safety. During our HP work we mostly dived deeper into the question of environmental safety related to our idea. <strong>Figure 3</strong> shows how norms such as ‘No risk for the environment derives from the value safety and what are the certain design requirements such as ‘the genetically modified (GM) plant shouldn’t outcompete native species’ to satisfy those norms in our design. <strong>We later rediscussed these design requirements and modified them according to the information we gathered from interviews we conducted.</strong> Making design choices related to safety were difficult. The design requirements for safety often clashed with the ones derived from accessibility. This is discussed later.</p>
<figcaption><strong>Figure 4. Visualising the value hierarchy for the value accessibility.</strong></br> The value hierarchy was made from top to bottom. The norms derived from the value safety and design requirements derived from these norms.</figcaption>
</div>
<p>Accessibility was an important value identified related to farmers and NGOs. NGOs like Greenpeace argue that the Agro and Seed industries main priority is profit (by patents and seeds that need to be rebought every year) rather than to make their technology and products accessible for all farmers and serve their local needs.[8] The design requirements shown in Figure 4 are interesting ones related to patenting and ownership, but also touching the core of our whole design. Other important questions for farmers are how expensive the GM seeds are. Is it affordable or cheaper compared to the non-GM type that needs fertilizer? Will the farmers have to buy the seeds every year? These questions related to accessibility touch the question of ownership and safety which are discussed in the IHP part.</p>
<p><strong>Accessibility</strong> was an important value identified related to <strong>farmers</strong> and <strong>NGOs.</strong> NGOs like Greenpeace argue that the Agro and Seed industries main priority is profit (by patents and seeds that need to be rebought every year) rather than to make their technology and products accessible for all farmers and serve their local needs.<ahref="#cite8"style="color: #185A4F;">[8]</a> The design requirements shown in <strong>Figure 4</strong> are interesting ones related to patenting and ownership, but also touching the core of our whole design. Other important questions for farmers are how expensive the GM seeds are. Is it <strong>affordable</strong> or cheaper compared to the non-GM type that needs fertilizer? Will the farmers have to buy the seeds every year? These questions related to accessibility touch the question of ownership and safety which are discussed in the <strong>IHP</strong> part.</p>
<p>See what design adjustments we made regarding these questions after interviews.</p>
</div>
<!-- 4 -->
<divclass="h"id="four">
<divclass="h1">Stakeholders</div>
<divclass="h2">Stakeholders we Talked to</div>
<p>When our team came up with our initial approach and design, it was very exciting and seemed like a great solution that the Netherlands and the world could hugely benefit from. Talking with Tyler Coal and Jonathan P. Zehr helped us with our first design idea. First a big question was the feasibility of the project. Therefore, we thought of a roadmap what essential steps would be needed to make a crop plant successfully incorporate the nitroplast organelle and fix nitrogen from the air. To discuss our approach and receive a critical view we talked with scientists from seed companies like KWS seeds. Then our concern became that we are creating a GM plant by means of synthetic biology, and whether that would really be a great solution or a techno fix? (see the teams view on this at <strong>Our responsible innovation approach </strong>) To answer this question, first, we talked to Martijn Schaap from TNO to learn more about the nitrogen problem/pollution in the Netherlands. Then we contacted RIVM and Max van Hooren from COGEM to talk about environmental safety and what measures could be applied to our project. We also discussed aspects of risk assessment. Then we had a discussion with Amrit Nanda, who is the Executive Manager of Plants for the Future ETP on how our idea could be applied in Europe and how to communicate our project since GMOs are not popular in Europe currently. Meanwhile with talked with dr. Zoë Robaey (WUR) about responsible innovation and the social impact of our project.</p>
<p>When our team came up with our initial approach and design, it was very exciting and seemed like a great solution that the Netherlands and the world could hugely benefit from. Talking with Tyler Coal and Jonathan P. Zehr helped us with our first design idea. The first big question was on the feasibility of the project. Thus, we developed a roadmap outlining the essential steps required for a crop plant to successfully incorporate the nitroplast organelle and fix nitrogen from the air. To discuss our approach and receive a critical view we talked with scientists from seed companies like KWS Seeds. Then our concern became that we are creating a GM plant by means of synthetic biology, and whether that would really be a great solution or a techno fix? (see the teams view on this at Our responsible innovation approach) To answer this question, first, we talked to Martijn Schaap from TNO to learn more about the nitrogen problem/pollution in the Netherlands. Then we contacted RIVM and Max van Hooren from COGEM to talk about environmental safety and what measures could be applied to our project. We also discussed aspects of risk assessment. Then we had a discussion with Amrit Nanda, who is the Executive Manager of Plants for the Future ETP on how our idea could be applied in Europe and how to communicate our project since GMOs are not popular in Europe currently. Meanwhile we talked with dr. Zoë Robaey (WUR) about responsible innovation and the social impact of our project. </p>
<p></p>
<divclass="h3">KWS SAAT</div>
<p>We had the opportunity (with the kind help of TU Delft AgTech Institute) to have a critical discussion with four scientists from KWS SAAT SE & Co. KGaA about our idea and experimental approach. KWS is an international seed company. We thought it is relevant to talk about the feasibility of our idea and approach with experienced scientist from a company that is relevant to seed development.</p>
<p>During our talk with the scientists we discussed additional aspects that are important to test for our idea in the early phases. Therefore, we included additional experiments and approaches for the fusion experiments but also for characterising our uTP peptide. More details can be found on the Future wet-lab experiments page. Additionally, they raised their concerns about the feasibility of our idea. They highlighted that it is important to think of alternative approaches and how our idea could compliment already existing solutions for improving nitrogen-fixation in plants. Reflecting to this we discuss these possibilities under Alternative approaches. </p>
...
...
@@ -131,7 +135,7 @@
<p>In our IHP part we tell how we integrated the ideas from the interactions with stakeholders. You can read about each interview and what we learned from it in <strong>Stakeholders we talked to</strong>.</p>
<divclass="h2">Safety/Environmental impact</div>
<p>We prioritised the value environmental safety in our product design. First it must be noted that a GM nitrogen-fixing crop engineered with our idea wouldn’t be possible to cultivate in the Netherlands or Europe according to the current legislation. This we discuss in more detail at the legislation part. Even for field trial experiments it could be hard to get a permit. Regardless we wanted to know more what environmental safety measures we would need to think of or implement in case we would have our technology ready for testing. We would be obliged to conduct an environmental risk assessment if we aim for commercialisation of our product on the market.</p>
<p>What we learned from the interviews with <strong> RIVM </strong> and <strong>Max van Hooren </strong>from COGEM that environmental safety – including containment measures for field trials – of GM crops or plants is very case dependant. It is important to know what plant in which environmental conditions we would want to grow. This is relevant for two main reasons; one is the <strong>crossing </strong>of our GM <strong>crop with native species </strong>therefore spreading the genetic information, the other is the <strong>spreading of our GM crop in the environment</strong>. In the light of these two aspects, we had to think of the target country and location. Originally, we were thinking of the Netherlands where there are relatively harsher winters so for example corn couldn’t possibly survive them so spreading wouldn’t be a problem, nor cross pollination neither because there aren’t many relative species native to the Netherlands. However, rapeseed would be a poor choice for example because it is widely cultivated in the Netherlands and there are native species as well.</p>
<p>What we learned from the interviews with RIVM and Max van Hooren from COGEM that environmental safety – including containment measures for field trials – of GM crops or plants is very case dependant. For instance, it is important to know what plant in which environmental conditions we would want to grow. This is relevant for two main reasons; one is the crossing of our GM crop with native species therefore spreading the genetic information, the other is the spreading of our GM crop in the environment. In the light of these two aspects, we had to think of the target country and location. Originally, we were thinking of the Netherlands where there are relatively harsher winters so for example corn couldn’t possibly survive them and spreading of it wouldn’t be a problem. Neither cross pollination because there aren’t many relative species native to the Netherlands. However, rapeseed would, for example, be a poor choice because it is widely cultivated in the Netherlands and there are native species as well.</p>
<p>Additionally for a market application we need to characterize all genes and inserts in our final GM plant and examine the genetic information surrounding the inserted genes. For this we should look at <strong>bioinformatics </strong> (like <strong> blasting </strong>) for toxicity and also compare if the plant would perform or be similar to the wild type. At the same time, we should look for possible mutations in the gene and around the gene so that we know if any unwanted characteristics appear</p>
<p>When talking about the spreading of our GM plant in the native environment, the main reason could be the <strong> competitive advantage of our plant compared to the wild type species </strong>, as Max van Hooren highlighted. There is good reason that a plant that can efficiently assimilate nitrogen from the air and is independent from the nitrogen assimilation in the soil by bacteria can outcompete those that don’t have this trait.[] We thought this could be especially relevant in regions where the soil has poor nitrogen content. This carries a risk that our GM plant becomes invasive and can cause the extinction of native species thus would disrupt the balance of the ecosystem. [] However, if we work with crops, this aspect could be less relevant because crops usually require extra nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides compared to wild relatives. </p>
<p>For the other aspect – which was the spread of the genetic information of our GM crop – it is important because wild type species could acquire the foreign genes []. Counterargument could be that this could happen naturally as well [] but we are directly introducing a trait that normally could require millions of years of evolution. This could happen by <strong> gene transfer </strong> or <strong>cross breading </strong> by pollination. Gene transfer between plants happens very scarcely.[9] Cross pollination would have a bigger chance then horizontal gene transfer therefore potentially a bigger risk. We discussed with Max van Hooren that if the nitroplast would be successfully incorporated as an organelle, probably the pollen would not contain it so the nitroplast itself wouldn’t spread by pollination thus nor the nitrogen-fixing trait. However, if the host organism itself also has inserted genes to have the ability to incorporate the nitroplast, then these inserted genes would still be transferred by the pollen to native relatives.</p>
