<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>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>
<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>
</div>
<divclass="h3">Martijn Schaap</div>
<p>Martijn Schaap is a Professor at Freie Universitaet Berlin on Air Quality and Principal Scientist at the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research ( TNO ). TNO is an independent research organisation that aims to create innovations while collaborating closely with governments, universities and the private sector. [TNO website]</p>
<p>Since Martijn is an expert on reactive nitrogen emissions and deposition we could learn more about the situation in the Netherlands, what are the main sources of ammonia and nitrogen oxide emissions. Since he is a researcher at TNO which is a Dutch organisation, we learned how the Dutch government approaches the problem. He also gave his opinion on ideas that could help solve the problem, these are also discussed in the alternative approaches part.
</p>
<divclass="h3">Zoë Robaey</div>
<p>We wanted to implement the notion of responsible innovation during our project. That is why we contacted dr. Zoë Robaey who is currently an Assistant Professor in Ethics of Technology at the Philosophy Group of Wageningen University. Her work investigates moral responsibility under conditions of uncertainty in the field of biotechnology in agriculture.
</p>
<p>We learned that it is not enough to have a potentially revolutionary idea that we think could do good. It is a fundamental part of being responsible that we think of how our idea or product will be used in society, who will own it, what exact problems our innovation will solve and what consequences can be anticipated to different choices. We developed our idea and thought of its application with this mindset all along.</p>
<p>As a result of our discussion, we came up with different types of responsible ownership models that could be applied to our project and what benefits each could have. Also, we thought more about our final product, do we want to create GM seeds in the end with specific crops, or just have a ‘nitrogen-fixing traits’ that could be used as a technology by others. You can see more on the ownership page and Entrepreneurship page about how we imagine our final idea.</p>
<divclass="h3">National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)</div>
<p>During our interview with the RIVM GMO office, we learned about environmental risk assessment and what are the steps for commercializing a GM crop in the EU and the Netherlands. Our main question was what the relevant aspects in the assessment of field trials are and how we can mitigate potential risks connected to our GM plant. We learned that risks and containment measures depend on the characteristics of the GMO and the environment it is grown in and are therefore case specific. So, choosing a plant is essential for specific details. A bioinformatics blasting module was discussed to assess safety better.
</p>
<divclass="h3">Max van Hooren</div>
<p>We followed up our RIVM discussion about environmental safety by reaching out to Max van Hooren to get more specific information on safety related to our design. He is a member of the scientific secretariat of The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM). COGEM is an advisory board that provides advice on work involving genetically modified organisms. </p>
<p>We discussed the environmental safety aspects in more detail such as competitive advantage and genes spreading via seeds. Also, important question was, what design would be best; to genetically engineer the host or not or the question of not making the organelle viable on its own.</p>
<divclass="h3">Amrit Nanda</div>
<p>Amrit Nanda is the Executive Manager of Plants for the Future ETP which is a Non-profit membership-based organization bringing together academia, industry and farming communities to promote the flow of innovation to market in the plant sector. She helped us learn more about GMO legislation in Europe and what possible changes could be proposed to promote the implementation of synthetic biology ideas like ours. We also talked about how important science communication is for the acceptance of GMOs in the public.</p>
<p>This helped us improve how we present our project to the public during different public activities. We talked about the difference in GMO legislation approach between Europe and other countries. Resulting, we discuss a potential approach how in Europe the application of GM crops could be looked at. </p>
<p>Disclaimer! Statements made during this interview are the personal opinions of Amrit Nanda and do not represent the positions of Plants for the Future or its members.</p>
</div>
<!-- 5 -->
<!-- 5 -->
<divclass="h"id="five">
<divclass="h"id="five">
<divclass="h1">Reaching Out to Stakeholders</div>
<divclass="h1">Reaching Out to Stakeholders</div>
<p>Reaching out and talking to stakeholders was always in a respectful manner. The team applied for the approval of our project by the TU Delft’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) since our work involved Human Research Subjects. For this we needed to fill out a form and identify potential risks connected to our activities involving Human Subjects (interviewees), create a data management plan approved by the Faculty Data Steward and write an Informed Consent Form. Prior to all interviews, the Informed Consent Form was sent asking for consent for posting and eventually sending the interviewees the transcript of our conversation for their approval for sharing the information on the wiki webpage.</p>
</div>
</div>
<!-- 6 -->
<!-- 6 -->
<divclass="h"id="six">
<divclass="h"id="six">
<divclass="h1">Integrated Human Practices</div>
<divclass="h1">Integrated Human Practices</div>
<p></p>
<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>
