Forest Health and Biotechnology Possibilities and Considerations (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Ecological, Economic, Social, and Ethical Considerations in the Use of Biotechnology in Forest Trees
4 Ecological, Economic, Social, and Ethical Considerations in the Use of Biotechnology in Forest Trees
Pages 93-128
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 93... ...
. Conversely, in cases where biotechnological approaches are implemented to address forest health, the intention is to maximize spread of the modified genome into forests to confer increased genetic resistance to insect pests or pathogens throughout the range of the tree species.
|
From page 94... ...
. Gene Flow and Horizontal Gene Transfer Many of the tree species under consideration are wind-pollinated, suggesting the potential for long-distance gene flow within the target species (Liepelt et al., 2002; Van Deynze et al., 2016; Semizer-Cuming et al., 2017)
|
From page 95... ...
The distribution of this resistance may not be consistent across the range of a tree species (see section below "Standing Genetic Variation in the Context of Range Position") , and resistance may involve trade-offs with other traits such as growth, drought resistance, seed production, tissue palatability, and nutrient dynamics that have implications for ecosystem function (Reid et al., 2016; Lovett, 2018)
|
From page 96... ...
As a result, to maximize forest health, the genetic changes need to be incorporated into a diverse breeding population rather than into an individual cultivar or variety. Standing Genetic Variation Long-lived forest tree species often have wide geographical distribution and exhibit predominantly outcrossing mating systems.
|
From page 97... ...
. Thus, historical distributions of tree species have contributed to their standing genetic variation, a factor that needs to be considered when assessing forest health and tree resistance to pests.
|
From page 98... ...
It would also be prudent to identify populations that may likely experience genetic offset due to the disruption of local adaptation through climate change. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS The committee identified the economic considerations of deploying a biotech tree resistant to insect pests or pathogens through the resulting impacts on ecosystem services.
|
From page 99... ...
Outside the official national accounts, researchers have employed various techniques to value forests in monetary terms. Based on the concept of ecosystem services, one estimate pegged the value of boreal and temperate forests at $3,137 per hectare per year (2007 U.S.
|
From page 100... ...
Incentives to Invest in the Development of a Biotech Tree When a forest ecosystem is threatened, the motivation to restore it to health is conditioned by concerns about the ecosystem services that are adversely affected or diminished when a tree species is lost or declining. The introduction of a biotech tree may thus be expected to affect the services provided by the forest ecosystem of which it is a part.
|
From page 101... ...
In the current context, however, public interest would be in innovations that protect forest health, broadly defined and with many public good aspects. The potential for a biotech tree to yield market and/or public goods and services depends on the particulars of the changes in uses and nonuses that occur when it is introduced into a forest ecosystem.
|
From page 102... ...
. Even if conventional tree breeding and biotech tree development had comparable costs for R&D, use of biotechnology comes with the added expense associated with regulatory approval.3 Compliance costs associated with the development of herbicide-resistant maize have been estimated at $6.0–$14.5 million and for insect-resistant maize at $7–$15 million (Kalaitzandonakes et al., 2007)
|
From page 103... ...
Specifically, it states, "Nonprofit institutions and government agencies do not need to receive a written license from Broad to conduct internal research, including sponsored research, to the extent that such research does not include the production or manufacture for sale or offer for sale or performance of commercial services for a fee."4 So it would seem that CRISPR-enabled resistance in a biotech tree would preclude the tree's commercial sale, which might well be consistent with the public interest in protecting forest health. Consumer Preferences Another consideration specific to the development of biotech trees is the nature of the markets into which private goods such as timber and pulpwood are sold.
|
From page 104... ...
The primary focus of most of these studies has been on biotechnology use aimed at increasing timber in forest plantations (e.g., faster tree growth, better wood structure) or responding to climate change, with only a few recent studies on using biotechnology for restoring tree species or reducing insect pests and pathogens in forests.
|
From page 105... ...
. Most studies have reported that although people are most supportive of natural regeneration, selective breeding and planting of native tree species, and site management practices such as thinning and felling to address forest health threats, the majority also support some biotechnological approaches, and many of these methods are viewed as more acceptable than doing nothing in the face of severe threats to forests (Hajjar et al., 2014; Hajjar and Kozak, 2015; Nonić et al., 2015; Fuller et al., 2016; Needham et al., 2016; Jepson and Arakelyan, 2017a,b)
|
From page 106... ...
, and this means that these risks are often perceived as more significant than other hazards that are more common and well known, but have higher objective risk. Given their novelty, biotechnological approaches for modifying forest trees are expected to be perceived as riskier than familiar methods such as selective breeding (Strauss et al., 2017)
|
From page 107... ...
In addition to these risks, attitudes toward using biotechnology in trees and forests may also be related to the extent that people view these approaches as beneficial. Research mostly in Canada and Europe has found that respondents in several studies perceived benefits of forest biotechnology, including 1.
|
From page 108... ...
who have been surveyed are aware of particular forest health threats and have heard about the potential for using biotechnology in trees and forests (Kazana et al., 2015, 2016; Nonić et al., 2015; Needham et al., 2016)
|
From page 109... ...
(2016) reported that a representative sample of Americans with biocentric or environmental value orientations had slightly more positive attitudes toward using biotechnology to help trees resist chestnut blight and restore American chestnut forests than did those with anthropocentric or utilitarian value orientations.
|
From page 110... ...
Although acknowledging that cultural components of ecosystem services provide a fairly broad and inclusive umbrella, this section explores social and ethical considerations as a complement to the ecosystem services framework. These considerations include intrinsic values, including the value of wildness, broad social influences, and social justice concerns.
|
From page 111... ...
Whitebark pine, for instance, though foundational in its ecosystem, has little commercial use; biotechnological changes to increase resistance to invasive blister rust would not make them more easily available for human benefit. Biotechnology and Forests' Naturalness or Wildness Value The use of biotechnology, though, may still have implications for intrinsic value, depending on what is actually being intrinsically valued about the forest.
|
From page 112... ...
On the other hand, if intrinsic value is (in part at least) based on the continued natural or wild existence of a particular threatened tree species or population, biological diversity, or the continued health of the entire forest ecosystem, then the use of biotechnology for forest health may be regarded as protecting intrinsic value.
|
From page 113... ...
The use of biotechnology to restore the American chestnut, for example, could be understood as protecting both the intrinsic value of this species and forest ecosystems by improving their health, and also as promoting intrinsically valuable forest biodiversity by reintroducing a species on which a wide variety of other organisms depend (Powell, 2016)
|
From page 114... ...
For instance, the use of biotechnology for conservation purposes could promote a shift in the focus of conservation from more traditional calls to change human behaviors in the environment, or attempts to separate places and species from undue human impacts (e.g., by creating nature reserves) , to much more managerial and interventionist strategies involving altering species and ecosystems to better fit into a human adapted world (Gamborg and Sandøe, 2010; Sandler, 2018)
|
From page 115... ...
. Alternatively, stakeholders seeking to restore a tree species such as the American chestnut might benefit from the introduction of blight-resistant transgenic American chestnut trees, whereas stakeholders who view any genetic modification of a forest species as reducing its wildness will bear the harm.
|
From page 116... ...
Concerns about social justice extend beyond those currently alive to include future generations of human beings. Many tree species are long-lived, with life spans exceeding many human generations.
|
From page 117... ...
Because forest trees are in minimally managed or unmanaged environments, biotech trees with resistance to pests will have to be genetically fit in their respective environments and capable of competing with other plant species to become established. They will also have to be able to convert the resistance trait into future generations without expressing additional traits, such as high fecundity and rapid growth rate, which could lead to invasiveness.
|
From page 118... ...
Conclusion: The public sector will be best positioned to lead development of biotech trees because of the public-good aspect of forest health and the intention for the spread of a biotech tree through a forest ecosystem. The role of the public sector (including government and nonprofit entities such as private foundations)
|
From page 119... ...
The lack of detailed knowledge by most members of the public about biotechnology, forest health, and the biotech and nonbiotech tools that could be used to address forest health means that attitudes toward the use of biotechnology in forest trees are extremely sensitive to informational messages and vulnerable to persuasion campaigns. Information delivered by trusted knowledgeable experts (e.g., forest agencies, scientists)
|
From page 120... ...
2016. Time to get moving: Assisted gene flow of forest trees.
|
From page 121... ...
2008. Adaptation from standing genetic variation.
|
From page 122... ...
2010. Ethical considerations regarding genetically modified trees.
|
From page 123... ...
2015. Public attitudes towards the use of transgenic forest trees: A cross-country pilot survey.
|
From page 124... ...
2012. Long-distance gene flow and adaptation of forest trees to rapid climate change.
|
From page 125... ...
Webinar presentation to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Committee on the Potential for Biotechnology to Address Forest Health, March 2. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)
|
From page 126... ...
2007. Gene flow and local adaptation in trees.
|
From page 127... ...
2016. The Intrinsic Value of Endangered Species.
|
From page 128... ...
2017. Climate-related genetic variation in a threatened tree species, Pinus albicaulis.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.