Quickly described your scientific path
I did my PhD in Umeå, working with chlorophyll a/b-binding proteins, and continued with this as assistant professor after a postdoc in Copenhagen. Later, I also started working with tree genetics and genomics, in particular aspen phenology. Since 2002, I am professor in Umeå.
Quickly described your GMO and gene editing history. What were the key steps?
I have for many years used the “PsbS” case to describe how strange and dysfunctional the GMO legislation is. We had EMS and radiation mutants lacking the protein (they are not GMOs) and T-DNA KO mutants lacking the same protein (they are GMOs). They have the same properties and risks but get regulated in opposite ways. Now we made a CRISPR-deletion mutant mimicking the radiation mutant, and asked whether it was a GMO or not. Our authorities said it was not, hence it is free to grow everywhere. However, this July the European Court of Justice took a decision that may overrule the opinion of the Swedish authority.
Why this gene-editing campaign? Do you believe it is a solution for tomorrow’s agriculture?
It is not only me who believes that. The whole scientific community does believe that it will help in getting a sustainable agriculture. It is extremely frustrating that we are deprived of our tools to contribute to this. I believe it is my obligation – as taxpayers provide my salary – to try to contribute to making the world a little bit better.
The public opinion is usually not pro-GMO or gene editing, what do you think it is due to? Would it be better to regulate the type of product (how useful and beneficial) more than how they were produced?
Concerning gene editing, I do not really feel that the public have much of an opinion at all. But is not pro-GMO, that is clear. A major driver for the resistance is that people associate GMOs with big and ugly (as they think) companies. They appear not to take in that the conflict is not between big companies vs. poor small-scale farmers, it is between science and preconceptions.
You are active in interacting with society to increase scientific awareness. What do you think would be needed to involve more scientists? And by which mean can scientists be more visible in society’s debate?
I think it is simply our duty, the problem is just that most of us do not have secure positions but have to compete and therefore prioritize developing their scientific CV rather than being visible in society. Should we decide that everyone does it on 2 % of our time? Then it would be fair and equal and make a huge difference? Of course, I realize that it is not realistic but I must stress that I find such activities very rewarding, one must find a way that makes it useful for both society and oneself.
Do you want to know more? Read ‘Gene-edited plants on the plate: the ‘CRISPR cabbage story’