Terrorism in the debate over tree genetic improvement

1. Terrorism in the debate over tree genetic improvement Toby Bradshaw College of Forest Resources University of Washington toby@u.washington.edu

3. From the ELF communiquè "Bradshaw, the driving force in G.E. tree research, continues to unleash mutant genes into the environment that is [sic] certain to cause irreversible harm to forest ecosystems. As long as universities continue to pursue this reckless 'science', they run the risk of suffering severe losses. Our message remains clear, we are determined to stop genetic engineering."

4. From the ELF FAQ Setting Fires With Electrical Timers - An Earth Liberation Front Guide “The ELF targets have included such issues as deforestation (for human development of roadways, for luxurious living and/or recreation areas, for profit by selling or using trees, etc.), urban sprawl, genetic engineering, natural habitat and ecosystem destruction, the use of slave labor by corporations and more.”

5. Human demand for wood and fiber is increasing Population growth Lumber Paper Fuel More agricultural land needed to grow food for humans; less land for forests and wilderness Biobased economy Biological raw materials augment and eventually replace petroleum to achieve sustainability

6. The upside potential for yield non-growing season 22% reflectance, respiration, etc. 21% net photosynthesis 1% A 1% increase in conversion of solar energy to fixed carbon will double biomass yield non-PAR 56%

7. The role of genetics in agriculture Genomics and biotech Single-cross hybrids Double-cross hybrids

8. Plant breeding involves two distinct phases Domestication Radical transformation of wild plant A few key mutations with huge effects Initial progress is extremely rapid Refinement Subtle alterations in plant structure and function Controlled by many genes with small effects Progress is slow but steady

9. Modern Hybrids • Primitive Maize • Teosinte Timeline: 5000 ybp today 7000 ybp Corn domestication

10. Forest tree domestication will follow an agricultural model Domestication of crops radically modified them Profound changes in morphology and physiology Domesticated plants cannot survive in the wild The first genetic mutations that lead to domestication are rare and valuable, but are only apparent under intensive cultivation

11. Where are we now and where will we be? ? ? Effect of mutations refinement domestication Number of mutations

12. Genetic engineering (GE) will be required for tree domestication One cycle of conventional breeding takes a decade; GE takes 6 months Outcrossing mating system prevents recovery of recessive mutations; GE can create them easily Many vital tree functions are supported with duplicated genes; GE can ‘knock out’ all copies of a gene at once Using genetic engineering, domestication could be compressed into a few decades instead of centuries of conventional breeding

13. What is a GMO? • Genetically Modified Organism • Asexual gene (DNA) transfer (genetic engineering/GE) • Unlimited gene pool • Research tool • Pharmaceuticals • Crops (‘Frankenfood’) • Livestock? • Forest trees? • Fish? • Humans?

14. Gene transfer (transformation) • Typical traits engineered into crops • Herbicide resistance (e.g., ‘Roundup Ready’) • Insect resistance (Bt toxin) • Vitamin A (‘golden rice’) • Fruit firmness (‘Flavr Savr’ tomato)

15. Potential benefits of GE plants • Accelerates plant breeding • Increased yield spares wilderness • Tolerance of harsh environments • Improved nutritional quality • Reduced use of chemical pesticides • Vaccine delivery • Novel products (e.g., pharmaceuticals, industrial raw materials)

16. Concerns about GE crops and food • Human health (e.g., allergies) • Unnatural breaching of species barrier • Corporate control of agriculture • Unethical (e.g., ‘playing God’) • Environmental risk

17. Potential environmental risks of GE plants • Non-target effects (e.g., Monarch butterfly) • Insects become resistant to Bt, making it useless for organic farmers • Increased use of broad-spectrum herbicides • Gene flow to wild relatives (e.g., ‘superweeds’) • Loss of biodiversity (e.g., monoculture)

18. Traits being genetically engineered in forest trees • Herbicide resistance (weed control) • Insect resistance (leaf beetle, budworm) • Disease resistance (chestnut blight, Dutch elm disease, fusiform rust) • Lignin reduction (reduced chemical use, waste, and energy consumption in pulping) • Reproductive sterility (prevention of transgene flow)

19. Traits of the future • Growth and yield • Branching • Microfibril angle • Tolerance of cold, drought, salt • Novel photosynthetic pathways • Self-pulping wood • ‘Farm’aceuticals • Industrial chemical feedstocks

20. Who opposes tree genetic engineering research? • Earth Liberation Front: “You cannot control what is wild.” • Greenpeace: moratorium on all field research with transgenic plants • Forest Stewardship Council: denies certification to entities conducting field research on transgenic trees

21. Forest Stewardship Council The use of exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively monitored to avoid adverse ecological impacts. No species should be planted on a large scale until local trials and/or experience have shown that they are ecologically well-adapted to the site, are not invasive, and do not have significant negative ecological impacts on other ecosystems.

22. Issues to discuss • What are the trade-offs involved in the adoption or rejection of genetically engineered trees? • Does genetic engineering differ in any meaningful way from conventional plant breeding?

23. US National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences position on GE and conventional plant breeding “The same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods.”

24. US National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences position on GE and conventional plant breeding The focus should be on PRODUCT, not PROCESS

25. From the ELF FAQ “Capitalism as a target is not easily identifiable due to it being an ideology rather than a physical object. But forms and symbols of capitalism can be targeted successfully … [t]he list is endless but could include such symbols in the U.S. as Mt. Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, Disney, Wall Street, etc.”