Altered crops: Your thoughts?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


From The Editors: In "Future Farming: A Return to Roots" in the new August issue, Jerry D. Glover, Cindy M. Cox and John P. Reganold argue that many of the problems associated with the modern agriculture--soil erosion, excessive water demands, high energy inputs and so on--are linked to the fact that most important grain crops are annuals, not perennials. That is, the crop plants have short root systems and need to be grown anew from seeds each spring. So the authors, along with other researchers, are working on developing new strains of these crops that have permanent root systems from which they can regrow every year. What do you think of that proposal? Many people are understandably wary of tampering with the ecosystem. But it's hard to deny that agriculture is already messing with the environment on a massive scale. And many valuable annual crop varieties are related to wild perennial species, so the new perennial varieties might not be totally alien to to nature. (Also note that it may not be necessary to use recombinant DNA technology to create these new plants through transgenics; it may also be possible to do it through marker assisted breeding, or cisgenics, which is fundamentally a sophisticated form of crossbreeding.) Of course, it's hard to think that Monsanto and other major seed producers will be pleased if new perennials cut into their markets for seed grain. So should the development of new perennial grain species be applauded? Or discouraged? Leave your thoughts in comments.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe