A Year of Progress in Biotechnology
Amid all the chaos and upheaval that came with the year just finished, one could easily be forgiven for failing to notice the wealth of positive developments in biotechnology. But there was plenty to report, especially on the agriculture front.
A well-fed person has many problems. A hungry person has one. With that wisdom in mind, we begin our review of the past year with a look at some of the most important developments in agriculture, which is, after all, the foundation of human civilization.
For my money, the most important development of the year in agriculture was the agreement in the European Union on a mandate to develop a science-based “set of rules that establish a legal framework for new genomic techniques (NGTs).” This was important because it was not only a good thing in and of itself, but also because it is likely to foreclose much worse possibilities, specifically, legal and regulatory obstacles sought by the usual suspects that would prevent or inhibit development and deployment of urgently needed innovations to tackle major challenges difficult or impossible otherwise to address. For the past four decades, EU policies on biological innovations, especially in agriculture, have been scientifically indefensible. Without doing anything to improve safety, they have imposed massive opportunity costs on consumers, farmers, and environments in Europe and all the other jurisdictions that have followed Brussels’ lead. Despite this millstone around the necks of innovators, the technology has delivered enormous benefits, disproportionately enjoyed by those most in need. The promise of new rules on NGTs from Brussels offers hope for correcting their past mistakes.
It was also good to see a series of papers from the Breakthrough Institute calling for the U.S. administration’s agricultural policies to “leverage the strength of U.S. farmers and agriculture companies to drive productivity growth, reduce the cost of food, and keep American agriculture competitive in the global market.” Arguably their most important piece lays out a “pro-innovation roadmap for biotechnology deregulation, trade, and research.” This is a solid proposal, on which they elaborate at some length. Breakthrough properly notes the tension from ill-considered policies at the Department of Health and Human Services, and argues that the Food and Drug Administration “should throw her weight behind policies that will enable U.S. farmers to harness technological innovations to sustainably produce more for both domestic consumption and export” by building on USDA’s recently released Farm Security Is National Security plan. This calls agricultural research, development, and innovation “the cornerstones of U.S. dominance in the global agricultural sector” and recognizes the power of biotechnology advances to improve plant and animal health. This is an agenda that should continue to receive the bipartisan support it has long enjoyed.
Breakthrough correctly calls for regulatory reform at FDA as well as USDA and EPA, topics on which ITIF has written repeatedly and at length. There is no greater obstacle to ag-biotech innovation worldwide than outdated and scientifically indefensible regulation. Paradoxically, this means there is a superabundance of low-hanging fruit ripe to be harvested by those who have the will to do so. This is a short path to a lasting, positive legacy.
If governments in Europe and the United States follow through on wise suggestions like these, they will accelerate the safe deployment of innovative molecular technologies. So, let’s have a look at what some of those should be.
History shows that the most valuable tools are those used to make more new tools. The genome sequences of the plants most valuable to humans are being compiled into a massive database known as PubPlant. This “Google Maps of Plant DNA” organizes and makes widely available the genome sequences that are now the standard starting place for modern plant breeding. It will be invaluable to plant breeders regardless of whether they use molecular or classical techniques.
One of the crop improvements highly desired but almost impossible to deliver until recently has been plants that make their own fertilizer. Legumes have this ability, but most other plants do not. But with modern techniques, researchers are now using CRISPR to develop, inter alia, gene-edited wheat that does in fact make its own fertilizer. They do this by helping soil bacteria to “generate natural fertilizer, promising cleaner, cheaper, more sustainable farming.” Similar tweaks are improving soybean performance as well.
Chile has given a “green light” for the first CRISPR-edited wheat in the Americas, and researchers have used CRISPR gene editing to replicate the nonbrowning fruit technology first fielded commercially by Arctic Apples to produce a nonbrowning banana. The Mars candy company is harnessing CRISPR to improve disease resistance in cocoa, which is under threat from diseases made worse by climate change.
In another novel application of CRISPR, researchers have used it to “supercharge a meat-like Fungus Into a Sustainable Protein Powerhouse.” This could provide a highly adaptable tool that could replace, for example, many uses of plastics with an economical, biodegradable alternative. CRISPR has also been adapted to use in Chrysanthemum, and apples have been endowed with improved disease resistance using artificial miRNAs to upregulate indigenous disease resistance genes in a way that promises dramatically to reduce pesticide applications.
And in one of those advances in which a series of incremental advances build up over time to deliver a major paradigm shift, CRISPR-based gene editing in plants is now being used much as conventional transgenic engineering has been for the past several decades to import or move around large DNA fragments and entire genes. This increases the capability of an already expansive new technology to extraordinary levels.
Applications of modern molecular biology were no less abundant in biomedicine than in agriculture last year. One of the biggest headline grabbers involved a personalized gene therapy to treat an infant with a rare genetic defect that causes accumulation of high levels of ammonia leading to myriad negative impacts resulting in death. Researchers used CRISPR to repair the causal genetic defect and lipid nanoparticles (like those used in the mRNA COVID vaccines) to deliver the repaired gene to the baby’s liver, where it was incorporated and cured the disease—a modern day miracle.
Researchers also secured promising results from a trial using edited T cells to treat a rare form of leukemia (acute lymphoblastic) that has until recently too often been a death sentence. Other blood disorders are also being treated with increasing success by various forms of gene therapy. The hope is that approaches like these will enable the development of personalized mRNA vaccines that will revolutionize the treatment of many forms of cancer treatment—if, as Scientific American has observed, federal funding cuts don’t doom them. A further improvement of CRISPR making it easier to insert entire genes will strengthen such capacities. Meanwhile, an mRNA therapy in mice has shown results in rejuvenating T cells in ways that could boost immune systems and make vaccines and cancer therapies more effective.
Adding AI to molecular biology has been reported to hold potential for improved precision and safety in protein design. The new proteins could be useful in treating many diseases and conditions in humans and other species.
And AI has been used to design a genome to encode a functional, bacteria-killing virus. This could be helpful in addressing antibiotic resistant microbes which are increasingly problematic.
Each day brings fresh reports of progress with innovations like these. If the past is any guide, 2026 will continue to deliver new miracles—if we have the sense to get out of our own way.
