GES Center Lectures, NC State University

Patti Mulligan

Recorded live from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this show explores how biotechnologies move from lab to life: microbiome engineering in buildings, CRISPR in agriculture and forestry, gene drives and integrated pest management, data governance and benefit-sharing, risk analysis and regulation, sci-art collaborations, and practical models of responsible innovation and public engagement. Episodes feature researchers, students, and community partners in candid conversations about decisions, trade-offs, and impacts. Learn more at go.ncsu.edu/ges and sign up for our newsletter at http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State

  1. 5d ago

    Greg Ferraro on the impacts of chronic sea level rise on coastal ag land values

    Effects of Current and Future Chronic Sea Level Rise Exposures on U.S. East and Gulf Coast Agricultural Land Values Greg Ferraro, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher at OARS, University of Maryland, Profile   Full details at https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/event/colloquium-2026-10-27/ | Watch the video Related links: Salinity-Affected Lands in Transition (SALT) Program Saltwater is seeping into Maryland’s coastal forests. This team is helping landowners prepare, Stanford School of Sustainability, 9/29/26 AI-generated Overview and Summary This GES colloquium session featured a research presentation by Greg Ferraro, a recent PhD graduate in economics from NC State University and former AgBioFEWS Fellow with the GES Center, now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Maryland. The talk focused on the economic impacts of sea level rise and saltwater intrusion on agricultural land values along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts. Drawing on nearly 40 years of land transaction data and environmental exposure metrics, Greg presented evidence that coastal agricultural land is experiencing significant and measurable financial depreciation driven by chronic sea level rise — with landowner expectations of future conditions playing an outsized role in current land valuations. Key Concepts or Theories Ricardian Land Value Model: A framework linking land sale prices to current and expected future environmental and economic conditions Saltwater Intrusion (SWiSLR): The process by which rising ocean levels push saline water into freshwater tables and cropland, causing soil degradation and crop loss Coastal Flood Days: A localized metric recorded by tidal gauges indicating days when ocean heights cause overland flooding Relative Mean Sea Level (RMSL): A localized measure of sea level change accounting for both ocean height and land subsidence Forward-Looking Capitalization: The concept that landowners incorporate expectations of future environmental deterioration into current land prices Resilience vs. Disaster-Response Policy: A policy framework distinction between reactive disaster payments and proactive, long-term resilience planning Important Questions Raised How do landowner expectations of future sea level rise influence current agricultural land values? What behavioral changes are farmers and landowners making in response to chronic saltwater intrusion? How should policymakers transition from disaster-based responses to resilience-based planning, and who decides how to allocate limited resources? Can alternative land uses — such as aquaculture, wetland conservation, or carbon sequestration easements — offset the economic losses from saltwater-degraded farmland? How does the financial framing of environmental damage affect public and policymaker understanding compared to ecological framing? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives Agricultural land within 0.1 miles of the projected 2100 inundation zone has lost approximately 20% of its value relative to unexposed comparable land as of 2023. Across 70 million acres studied along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, aggregate land value losses total approximately $6 billion. The majority of land value depreciation is driven not by current exposure, but by landowners' forward-looking expectations of worsening sea level rise conditions. Landowners appear to be relatively accurate in predicting near-term sea level rise trends, as evidenced by alignment between implied forecasts from land values and realized environmental data. Saltwater intrusion damages are described as "unequivocal" compared to other climate-agriculture relationships, where yield impacts remain more contested. Current U.S. agricultural policy is primarily oriented toward disaster relief rather than chronic resilience planning, representing a significant policy gap. Interdisciplinary communication and collaboration are critical skills for researchers working at the intersection of economics, environmental science, and policy. Topic 1: Sea Level Rise — Environmental Context and Observed Impacts Global mean sea level has risen steadily since 1880, with an observable acceleration beginning around 2000. Expert forecasts project continued and potentially exponential increases through the end of the century, with even the most optimistic scenarios indicating substantial rise. Locally, this manifests through two key metrics: coastal flood days — the number of days per year when tidal gauges record overland flooding — and Relative Mean Sea Level (RMSL), which accounts for local land and ocean dynamics. Using NASA Landsat satellite imagery of Dare County, North Carolina, Greg illustrated visible changes between 1985 and 2024, including expansion of marshland, dead vegetation, and saltwater-intruded cropland. At 2 feet of sea level rise — projected for approximately 2100 — entire coastal zones are expected to be permanently inundated. The most exposed areas in the study include New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Gulf Coast regions of Texas and Louisiana. The primary mechanism of agricultural damage is saltwater intrusion: rising ocean pressure forces saline water into freshwater aquifers and drainage canals, depositing salt directly into soil — a phenomenon visually described as "salt burn" — causing crop failure and long-term soil degradation. Flooding duration also increases, as elevated water tables cause storm and rain water to pool for longer periods. Relevant Q\&A Question: "Can you go back to the slide showing the difference in farm sale prices and the coastal outlines? I noticed a lot of blank space in areas where I would expect farming activity. Is that due to farmers holding onto land, or a lack of trust in this kind of research?" Answer: Greg noted that the dataset, while large, is incomplete due to county- and state-level variation in record quality. North Carolina, for example, had significant misclassification of agricultural land as vacant. Beyond data quality, variation in sales does reflect socioeconomic and cultural factors — rural landowners tend to hold land for heritage reasons, while more urbanized states like New Jersey show near-complete transaction coverage due to higher agricultural land turnover. Topic 2: Economic Findings — Land Value Depreciation and Landowner Behavior Greg employed a forward-looking Ricardian model to analyze approximately 440,000 agricultural land transactions recorded between 1980 and 2023 across the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts. The model separates the effect of current sea level rise exposure from the capitalized effect of expected future exposure, allowing for insight into both present damages and landowner forward-looking behavior. Key findings include: 20% average value loss for parcels within 0.1 miles of the projected 2100 inundation zone as of 2023, compared to unexposed comparable sales. More than double the estimated land depreciation when forward-looking expectations are included in the model, compared to current exposure alone. Spatial concentration of damages: Nearly all aggregate losses are concentrated in the closest distance bin (within 0.1 miles of the inundation zone), with effects dropping sharply to approximately 1.5% at the next distance band. Agriculturally abundant and high-value zone: The most affected coastal strip contains a disproportionately large share of cropland acres and commands some of the highest per-acre land values in the study area, partly due to coastal amenities and high agricultural productivity. Landowners are holding onto exposed land rather than selling, suggesting that potential buyers — including urban developers — may share similar pessimistic expectations about future conditions, reducing demand. Crop choice is shifting in exposed areas, though not uniformly toward salt-tolerant varieties. Market value, insurance availability, and hybrid seed options all factor into adaptation decisions. Landowner forecasts are relatively accurate: Implied sea level rise expectations derived from land value changes closely track realized flood day and RMSL data over the study period, supporting the interpretation that forward-looking capitalization reflects genuine behavioral responses rather than statistical noise. Relevant Q\&A Question: "Your study looked at changes in agricultural land value with the most significant effects in the 0.1 mile inundation zone. Have you looked at changes in private property values within coastal areas, and would you expect to see similar patterns?" Answer: Greg confirmed that existing literature on residential properties does show deterioration in coastal areas. While his research design was not specifically structured to isolate residential effects, his dataset includes residential sales as a control variable and does capture effects. He noted that residential coastal property involves additional complexity, including government-built protections, gentrification dynamics, and social equity considerations, making it a rich area for further study. Question: "Could sea level rise be affecting sales because farmers are trying to sell damaged land — creating a selection problem in your data?" Answer: Greg addressed this directly, noting that he tested the likelihood and timing of sales and found that agricultural land in exposed areas is actually less likely to be sold, not more. This finding reduces concern about selective selling of less productive land driving the observed price discounts. The higher baseline sale values in the most exposed zone further support the interpretation that the depreciation reflects genuine environmental capitalization rather than compositional bias. Topic 3: Policy Implications and Future Research Directions Greg argued that current U.S. agricultural policy is structurally misaligned with the nature of chronic sea level rise. Existing programs — including disaster payments and flood insurance —

  2. Oct 14

    Ed Perry on GE crops and pesticides: the critical nexus

    GES Colloquium: GE Crops and Pesticides: The Critical Nexus Edward Perry, PhD Associate Professor of Economics at Iowa State University, Profile   Full details at https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/event/colloquium-2026-10-13/ | Watch the video Related links: Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticides: The Critical Nexus, Moschini and Perry, 2026 [Pre-print]. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6901678  Perry, E. D., & Moschini, G. (2020). Neonicotinoids in US maize: insecticide substitution effects and environmental risk. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 102, 102320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102320  Perry, E. D., Ciliberto, F., Hennessy, D. A., & Moschini, G. (2016). Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in US maize and soybeans. Science advances, 2(8), e1600850. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600850  Lee, S., Moschini, G., & Perry, E. D. (2023). Genetically engineered varieties and applied pesticide toxicity in US maize and soybeans: Heterogeneous and evolving impacts. Ecological Economics, 211, 107873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107873  Carrière Y., Brown Z., Aglasan S., et al. (2020) Crop rotation mitigates impacts of corn rootworm resistance to transgenic Bt corn, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 (31) 18385-18392, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003604117  Gould F., Brown Z.S., and Kuzma J. (2018) Wicked evolution: Can we address the sociobiological dilemma of pesticide resistance? Science, Vol. 360, Issue 6390, pp. 728-732. DOI: 10.1126/science.aar3780. Download Overview This colloquium, hosted by the Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Center, featured a presentation by Ed Perry, newly appointed economics faculty at Iowa State University. The talk was based on a working handbook chapter co-authored with Giancarlo Moschini, titled Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticides: A Critical Nexus. The presentation provided a comprehensive survey of the economic and environmental literature examining the relationship between genetically engineered (GE) crop adoption and pesticide use over the past 30 years, covering farm-level impacts, resistance development, spillover effects, and human health concerns. Key Concepts or Theories Economic framework of GE crop adoption: Farmers as profit-maximizing agents whose pesticide decisions are shaped by the marginal value of inputs, altered by GE traits Two-phase model of GE crop impact: An initial phase of simplified, reduced-cost pesticide use followed by a resistance-driven rebound in chemical inputs Tragedy of the commons in resistance management: Individual rational behavior leading to collectively suboptimal outcomes in pest and weed resistance Toxicity-weighted pesticide measurement (Total Applied Toxicity - TAT): Weighting pesticide quantities by species-specific LD50 scores to better capture environmental and health hazards Spillover effects: Both positive (pest suppression benefiting neighboring farms) and negative (herbicide drift, resistance spread) externalities extending beyond adopting farms Important Questions Raised Has GE crop adoption contributed to larger farm sizes, and what confounding factors does that introduce? Can negative birth outcomes observed in studies be specifically attributed to glyphosate, or are they driven by broader land use changes? How should extension programs and policy incorporate research findings on pesticide use and resistance management? What are the unintended consequences of restricting specific pesticides, and could substitutes be more harmful? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives GE crop adoption has had fundamentally different effects on insecticide use versus herbicide use, requiring separate analysis of each trait type. Bt insect-resistant crops have more unambiguously reduced insecticide use and improved yields, though resistance issues persist, particularly with western corn rootworm. Herbicide-tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops initially simplified and reduced herbicide costs but created conditions for widespread glyphosate resistance, now confirmed in 38 weed species globally. Measuring pesticide use by mass alone is misleading; toxicity-weighted measures reveal qualitatively different trends and are essential for accurate environmental and health assessments. Spillover effects of GE crop adoption are bidirectional: positive effects include regional pest suppression and increased no-till adoption; negative effects include herbicide drift complaints and resistance spread. The link between glyphosate use and negative birth outcomes remains an open and contested area of research, with methodological challenges in isolating glyphosate from other co-occurring land use changes. Proactive resistance management policies in the early 2000s could have prevented billions of dollars in current herbicide costs. Policy design must account for unintended consequences, as restricting one pesticide may lead farmers to adopt alternatives that are equally or more harmful. Topic 1: Farm-Level Impacts of GE Crop Adoption The presentation began by framing GE crop adoption through an economic lens: farmers seek to maximize profit, and GE traits alter the relative value of different pesticide inputs. Bt (insect-resistant) traits substitute for insecticides by embedding proteins that kill target insects, while herbicide-tolerant traits — most notably Roundup Ready crops — allow broad-spectrum glyphosate application without crop damage, simplifying weed management and reducing costs. By approximately 2013, over 90% of corn, soybean, and cotton acres in the U.S. were planted with herbicide-tolerant varieties, and similar adoption rates were reached for Bt traits by 2020. This near-universal adoption has had significant implications for pesticide use patterns at the farm level. Bt Insect-Resistant Crops: A global meta-analysis cited by Ed Perry found that Bt crop adoption was associated with a 25% average yield increase, a 42% reduction in pesticide quantity, and higher profits. U.S.-specific data showed approximately an 11% reduction in insecticide use, a smaller figure reflecting higher baseline insecticide use in the U.S. These outcomes were described as more unambiguously positive compared to herbicide-tolerant crops. Herbicide-Tolerant Crops: The picture is more complex. While GT soybean adopters used 28% more herbicide by mass than non-adopters, toxicity-weighted measures showed no significant difference in environmental hazard between the two groups. The primary initial benefit was cost reduction: glyphosate, especially after its patent expiration in 2000, was cheap and effective, enabling farmers to dramatically simplify their herbicide programs. Relevant Q\&A Question: Has the adoption of GE crops led to larger farm sizes, and what confounding factors might that introduce? Answer: Ed Perry noted that he was unaware of studies directly quantifying this relationship and suggested intuitively that GE crops may not strongly favor larger farms, since they do not require large fixed-cost investments the way precision agriculture technologies do. He suggested GE crops may have been relatively more beneficial to smaller operations. Zack agreed, characterizing GE crops as a scale-independent technology. Gaylon offered a grower-level perspective, noting that the convenience of GE systems allowed farmers to cover more acres with the same effort, potentially enabling economies of scale. Ed Perry acknowledged this could shift crop mix — for example, increasing soybean acreage — but noted that disentangling GE adoption effects from simultaneous commodity price booms and ethanol mandates is methodologically challenging. Topic 2: Resistance Development and the Two-Phase Model Ed Perry described a clear two-phase trajectory in how GE crop adoption has affected pesticide use, using soybean herbicide trends as the primary illustration. Phase 1 (approximately 1996–2007): Following the rapid adoption of Roundup Ready soybeans, farmers dramatically increased glyphosate use while eliminating nearly all other herbicides. By 2006, over 70% of soybean farms surveyed were using exclusively glyphosate with no supplemental herbicides. This simplified system was highly cost-effective and initially very productive. Phase 2 (approximately 2007–present): Beginning around 2004–2005, reports emerged of glyphosate-resistant weed populations — an outcome that had not been widely anticipated by agronomists and weed scientists at the time of Roundup Ready's commercialization. Resistance spread rapidly, and by the time of the presentation, 38 weed species globally had confirmed glyphosate resistance, including highly problematic species such as Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp. In response, farmers began reintroducing older herbicides alongside continued glyphosate use, such that by 2018, total herbicide mass applied in soybeans was approaching or exceeding 1992 levels. Herbicide program costs per acre in Iowa rose from approximately 10–15 in 2006–2007 to 60–70 currently, representing potentially billions of dollars in aggregate additional costs. Bt Resistance: Resistance to Bt traits has been less severe overall. European corn borer resistance has remained relatively controlled due to the high toxicity of the relevant proteins and the biological characteristics of the pest. However, western corn rootworm has developed resistance to multiple Bt toxins, and adoption of rootworm-targeting Bt traits has declined as farmer confidence in their effectiveness has eroded. Tragedy of the Commons: Ed Perry framed resistance as a collective action problem. Individual farmers optimize for their own operations without internalizing the resistance externalities imposed on neighbors. Additionally, seed company marketing practices — bundling all available traits into a limited set of commercial varieties — may inadvertently accelerate resistance

  3. Oct 7

    James Tuck - DNA-based data storage: How to store a library in a raindrop

    How to Store a Library in a Raindrop: DNA-based Data Storage James Tuck, PhD | Website Professor and Interim Department Head in Electrical and Computer Engineering, NC State University   Full details at https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/event/colloquium-2026-10-06/ | Watch the video Related links: Kyle J. Tomek, Kevin Volkel, Alexander Simpson, Austin G. Has, Elaine W. Indermaur, James M. Tuck, Albert J. Keung. Driving the Scalability of DNA-Based Information Storage Systems, ACS Synth. Biol.2019861241-1248, https://doi.org/10.1021  Zoom Summary Overview This colloquium presentation, delivered by James Tuck, Professor and Interim Department Head in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at NC State University, explored the emerging field of DNA-based data storage. The talk addressed the fundamental question of whether an entire library's worth of data could be stored in a single raindrop, and provided a comprehensive overview of how DNA can serve as an ultra-dense, long-lasting storage medium for digital information. Key Concepts or Theories Binary-to-DNA Mapping: Digital data (zeros and ones) can be systematically converted into DNA base sequences (A, C, G, T), with each base representing two bits of information. Data Temperature Hierarchy: Data is classified as hot, warm, cold, or frozen based on access frequency, with DNA storage best suited for cold/frozen archival data. Six-Step DNA Storage Pipeline: The process of storing and retrieving data in DNA involves encoding, synthesis, storage, access, sequencing, and decoding. GC Balance and Homopolymer Avoidance: Effective DNA storage requires careful sequence design to maintain chemical stability and sequencing accuracy. Error Correction: Redundancy and mathematical coding techniques are used to ensure reliable data recovery despite synthesis and sequencing errors. Molecular Computing: Enzymatic and chemical reaction networks can potentially enable computation directly on stored DNA, reducing the need to transfer data back to digital systems. Important Questions Raised Can DNA storage be made cost-effective enough for widespread commercial adoption? How do existing data privacy regulations (e.g., the EU's right to erasure) apply when personal data is stored in a DNA archive that cannot be selectively unmixed? What knowledge should humanity choose to preserve in long-lasting DNA archives, and who controls that decision? Can living biological systems, such as yeast, be harnessed to store and maintain digital data? How do DNA strand length, synthesis cost, and sequencing error rates interact to define optimal storage parameters? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives DNA offers extraordinary storage density, with a theoretical peak of approximately 450 exabytes per gram, far exceeding current digital storage technologies. The global data sphere is estimated at around 200 zettabytes and is growing exponentially, creating urgent demand for new storage solutions. DNA storage is most practical for cold or frozen data — information that must be retained for decades or centuries but accessed infrequently. A six-step pipeline (encode, synthesize, store, access, sequence, decode) forms the foundation of any DNA-based storage system. Error correction strategies, borrowed from decades of computer engineering research, can ensure reliable data recovery even in the presence of synthesis and sequencing errors. Commercialization of DNA storage is underway, with companies such as BioMemory and Atlas Biosciences actively developing the technology. Significant challenges remain, including reducing synthesis costs, scaling archive sizes beyond the current ~200 megabyte laboratory record, and integrating DNA storage with existing IT infrastructure. DNA storage raises important ethical, legal, and policy questions around data ownership, deletion rights, and the long-term stewardship of human knowledge. Topic 1: The Case for DNA-Based Data Storage The exponential growth of global data — estimated at approximately 200 zettabytes today and projected to continue rising — is straining the capacity, cost, and energy efficiency of conventional storage technologies. Hard drives, magnetic tape, CDs, and flash memory all have finite lifespans ranging from a few years to a few decades, and none can match the density that DNA theoretically offers. James Tuck introduced DNA as a compelling alternative by drawing on a straightforward back-of-the-envelope calculation: a human body, with roughly 30 trillion cells each containing approximately 3 billion base pairs, could theoretically hold around 22.5 zettabytes of information — comparable to the entire global data sphere. At the molecular level, the peak theoretical storage density of DNA is approximately 450 exabytes per gram. Translating this to a practical example, a single raindrop (approximately 50 microliters) could potentially hold around one exabyte of data, equivalent to roughly 56 copies of the Hunt Library at NC State. Beyond density, DNA offers exceptional longevity. Researchers have successfully sequenced DNA from fossils millions of years old, and laboratory aging studies suggest that properly preserved synthetic DNA could remain readable for centuries or longer — far surpassing the 5–30 year lifespans of current storage media. Additionally, DNA is likely to remain permanently relevant to humanity as long as we are biological beings, unlike obsolete formats such as floppy disks or cassette tapes. Within the data storage hierarchy, DNA is best positioned as a medium for cold or frozen data: information that must never be deleted but is accessed very rarely, such as medical records, government archives, research datasets, financial records, and the broader corpus of human knowledge. Relevant Q\&A Question: What are the density advantages of DNA compared to conventional storage, and how does this translate to a practical example like a library? Answer: At a theoretical peak density of approximately 450 exabytes per gram, a single raindrop of DNA-dissolved water could store around one exabyte of data — enough to hold approximately 56 copies of the Hunt Library. This density advantage stems from the fact that each DNA base can encode two bits of information, and DNA molecules can be packed extremely tightly in solution. Topic 2: How DNA Data Storage Works — The Six-Step Pipeline James Tuck outlined a six-step process that forms the operational backbone of any DNA-based storage system. Step 1 — Encode: Any digital file, regardless of format, is broken into small chunks (typically 20–40 bytes each) that can fit on a single short DNA strand. Each chunk is assigned an index to enable later reassembly, and a file identifier is added so that multiple files can coexist in the same archive. The binary data is then converted into DNA base sequences. Not all sequences are suitable: GC balance (roughly equal proportions of G/C and A/T bases) must be maintained, and homopolymer runs (e.g., long stretches of the same base) must be avoided to ensure sequencing accuracy. As a result, practical systems achieve approximately 1 to 1.5 bits per base rather than the theoretical maximum of 2 bits per base. Error correction codes are also embedded to enable recovery from synthesis and sequencing errors. Step 2 — Synthesize: The designed sequences are manufactured into physical DNA, either by sending sequence files to commercial providers such as IDT or Twist Biosciences, or using in-house DNA synthesis equipment. Current bulk oligosynthesis costs are approximately one-tenth of a cent per base, making large-scale synthesis expensive but improving. Strand lengths of 100–300 bases represent a practical and cost-effective sweet spot. Step 3 — Store: The synthesized DNA strands are stored in test tubes or arrays of tubes. A single tube can potentially hold between a terabyte and a petabyte of data. Multiple tubes can be organized into racks to form a large-scale archive. Step 4 — Access: Because molecules cannot be unmixed once combined, selective file retrieval relies on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Unique primer sequences corresponding to each file's identifier are used to amplify only the target file's molecules, making them overwhelmingly abundant relative to the rest of the archive before sequencing. Step 5 — Sequence: The amplified DNA is read by a sequencing machine, producing base-called sequences and quality scores. Both high-throughput sequencing and nanopore sequencing can be used, though nanopore sequencing introduces higher error rates that must be accounted for in the encoding design. Step 6 — Decode: Software processes the raw sequencing reads to filter by file ID, cluster repeated reads, correct base errors, fill in missing data, and reassemble the chunks in their original order to reconstruct the original digital file. All decoding is performed in silico. Relevant Q\&A Question: Do the error correction sections account for mutations and errors that accumulate over long storage periods, and can data integrity be guaranteed to shareholders? Answer: Yes. Error correction is a well-established field dating back nearly a century. As long as the system's worst-case error rate is characterized, redundancy and mathematical coding techniques can be designed to reliably recover the original data. PCR naturally produces many copies, which aids error correction, and more sophisticated mathematical codes provide even stronger guarantees. Provided the system operates within its nominal parameters, a strong case can be made to shareholders that data will always be recoverable. Question: Is the decoding process performed in silico or in vitro? Answer: All decoding and translation steps are performed in silico. The sequencer produces base-called reads, and software handles all subsequent processing to reconstruct the original file. Question: What is the optimal strand length

  4. Sep 22

    Joseph Gakpo & Katie Sanders on what research tells us about communicating gene editing effectively

    Communicating Gene Editing Effectively: What Does the Research Tell Us? Katie Sanders, PhD, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, NC State University | Profile ******Joseph Opoku Gakpo, PHD, Founder, RM Communications | Profile Related links: Sanders, C. E. , Parrella, J. A., Lu, P., Landaverde, R., Gibson, K. E., & Gakpo, J. O. (2026). Perceptions of CRISPR and the role of risk information seeking and processing: An analysis of North Carolina consumers. Crisis and Risk Communication , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/29986907.2026.2721662 Gakpo, J. O ., Gulabrai, B., Sanders, C. E ., Parrella, J. A., Proudman, J., Berger, T., & Mitloehner, F. (2026). U.S. consumers’ processing of information about CRISPR-edited pork products. GM Crops & Food , 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2026.2719351 NC State Hub for Food Systems Communication and Engagement ---- Zoom Summary Overview This colloquium presentation featured Katie Sanders and Joseph Gakpo, who shared findings from two recently published research studies examining public perceptions and information-processing behaviors related to CRISPR gene-edited food products. The first study focused on North Carolina residents' information-seeking behaviors regarding CRISPR in food products generally, while the second examined a national sample's processing of information specifically about CRISPR-edited pork, following the high-profile approval of the PRRS-resistant pig. Both studies were grounded in the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model and employed structural equation modeling and regression analysis to understand how consumers engage with emerging biotechnology information. Key Concepts or Theories Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) Model: A theoretical framework examining how individuals seek, avoid, and process information about risks or innovations based on factors such as information sufficiency, channel beliefs, and self-efficacy. Information Sufficiency vs. Sufficiency Threshold: The gap between how much information a person currently has and how much they feel they need before making a comfortable decision about a technology. Systematic vs. Heuristic Processing: Systematic processing involves deep, critical engagement with information; heuristic processing relies on mental shortcuts to reach conclusions. Relevant Channel Beliefs: An individual's perception of how biased or credible a given information channel is. Perceived Information Gathering Capacity: A measure of self-efficacy — whether an individual believes they can effectively use a given channel to obtain information. Modular Approach to Communication: A strategy for disseminating information in layered formats, allowing audiences to self-select the depth of information they consume. Integrated Communication Strategy: Using multiple, complementary platforms and channels to deliver consistent and holistic messaging rather than relying on a single source. Audience Segmentation: Tailoring communication strategies not only by demographics but also by the values and worldviews of target audiences. Important Questions Raised How do consumers process information about CRISPR-edited food products, and what channels do they trust most? Why do people continue to use information sources they perceive as biased? How does prior knowledge of Extension services affect consumers' self-efficacy in seeking CRISPR-related information? What role do subjective norms play in shaping information-seeking behaviors around gene-edited products? How do worldviews and values — such as trust in science or aversion to tampering with nature — influence acceptance or rejection of CRISPR-edited foods? What are the implications of the RISP model's findings for science communicators and technology developers? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives The RISP model was validated in both a North Carolina-specific and a national context, demonstrating its robustness across different populations and gene-editing topics. Consumers are generally open to learning more about CRISPR-edited pork and are not highly avoidant of related information, contrary to assumptions that the public disengages from complex scientific topics. People who perceive news media and social media as biased tend to seek more information, suggesting that perceived bias motivates rather than discourages information-seeking. Extension services represent a significant but underutilized opportunity for credible science communication, particularly once audiences are made aware of what Extension is and does. A modular, integrated, multi-platform communication approach is recommended to meet audiences where they are and allow them to self-select the depth of information they consume. Audience segmentation should go beyond demographics to include values and worldviews, which are increasingly important predictors of technology acceptance. Male respondents reported higher heuristic processing than female respondents; older respondents reported lower information avoidance than younger respondents (ages 25–35). Respondents with some college education reported higher information seeking and lower information avoidance than those with only a high school diploma or GED. Future research directions include examining institutional trust, worldview constructs, and producer-side attitudes toward gene-edited technologies. Topic 1: Study Overview and Theoretical Framework Both studies presented by Katie Sanders and Joseph Gakpo were grounded in the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model, a well-established framework in science communication research. The model examines how individuals respond to information about risks or innovations by considering factors such as how much information they currently have (information sufficiency), how much they feel they need (sufficiency threshold), their perceptions of channel credibility (relevant channel beliefs), and their confidence in using those channels (perceived information gathering capacity). These factors collectively shape four key behaviors: information seeking, information avoidance, systematic processing, and heuristic processing. The first study focused on North Carolina residents and their information-seeking behaviors related to CRISPR use in food products broadly. The second study expanded to a national sample and concentrated specifically on CRISPR-edited pork, a topic that gained public attention following the regulatory approval of the PRRS-resistant pig. Both studies used structural equation modeling and regression analysis to identify relationships among these variables. A key contextual backdrop for the research was the growing landscape of gene-editing applications in agriculture. As of 2024, the literature documented 212 papers on gene editing in animals, with CRISPR-Cas9 as the leading technology. Commonly targeted traits in livestock included yield, reproduction, and disease resistance. Despite this scientific momentum, CRISPR-edited products are not yet widely available on the market, making public opinion research particularly timely. Relevant Q\&A Question : Are you differentiating between the kind of information being sought — for example, misinformation versus credible information? Answer : The studies did not attempt to differentiate between misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation. The research measured respondents' perceptions of information credibility through separate measures (relevant channel beliefs), but the information-seeking behaviors themselves were assessed without categorizing the type of information sought. Question : Is there a paradox in that people continue to use sources they perceive as biased? Answer : Katie Sanders acknowledged this paradox, noting that people may be inflating their perceived capacity to identify bias, or they may be continuing to use biased sources regardless. Joseph Gakpo added that seeking from multiple sources — including those perceived as biased — may be a rational strategy to triangulate information and manage perceived bias across channels. Topic 2: Study One — North Carolina CRISPR Information-Seeking Behaviors The first study examined how North Carolina residents seek and process information about CRISPR-edited food products, with a particular focus on the role of different information channels: news media, social media, Extension services, and interpersonal sources. Key findings revealed that individuals who perceived news media as more biased were actually more likely to seek information about CRISPR-edited products. Similarly, those with more negative perceptions of social media were more likely to both seek and deeply process CRISPR-related information. Interestingly, respondents with higher self-efficacy on social media — those who felt confident in their ability to use social media to find information — were more likely to avoid CRISPR-related information, at least within the North Carolina sample. Extension services emerged as a particularly noteworthy finding. Lower beliefs in Extension as an information channel were associated with greater avoidance of CRISPR-related information. However, once respondents were informed about what Extension is and does, their self-efficacy in using Extension for CRISPR information increased significantly. This suggests that Extension's challenge is less about credibility and more about brand visibility and public awareness. The study also found that interpersonal conversations about CRISPR were not significantly impacting the ways in which people seek and process information in the deep, critical manner that communicators would hope for. Social media, while important, cannot stand alone as an information delivery system and must be part of a broader integrated communication strategy. Relevant Q\&A Question : Were the information-seeking and processing behaviors measured generally or specifically in the contex

  5. Sep 15

    Ben Trump on what is happening with AI

    What is happening with AI, and what are our governments doing about it? Benjamin D. Trump Associate Professor, NC State University  About the speaker Dr. Benjamin D. Trump is an Associate Professor at NC State University, joining the Genetic Engineering and Society Cluster in 2026 through the Chancellor’s Faculty Excellence Program. His work centers on organizational and societal resilience, decision-making for defense, the risk governance of emerging technologies, and critical infrastructure. For his contributions, President Biden awarded him a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) in January 2025, the highest federal honor for early-career researchers. Dr. Trump served as a U.S. Embassy Science Fellow in Turkmenistan, focusing on multilateral water security, and has also worked in Iraq, Jordan, Ukraine and Libya. He is President of the Society for Risk Analysis and has contributed to numerous organizations, including USAID, the World Bank, NATO Science for Peace and Security, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, OECD, and the International Risk Governance Council. Dr. Trump has published nine books and more than 100 peer-reviewed papers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he served as an emergency responder for two years, earning the U.S. Army Civilian Medal for Humanitarian Service and Army Superior Civilian Service Award for hands-on work that saved many lives in his area of responsibility. Dr. Trump holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Related links: The time window before biological AI spreads , Trump et al., EMBO Reports , 2026 Biotechnology and AI: Technological Convergence and Information Hazards , Conference proceedings from the NATO Advanced Research Workshop. Editors: Cummings, Trump , et al., 2026 [ Access via NCSU Libraries > ] Governing the AI–biotech convergence , Trump et al., EMBO Reports , 2026 ** Zoom Summary Overview This GES Colloquium featured Dr. Ben Trump, a newly hired faculty member in the Chancellor's Faculty Excellence Program for Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) at NC State. Dr. Trump presented on the current state of artificial intelligence, its technical underpinnings, emerging governance challenges, and the biological implications of AI-driven research. The talk spanned recent real-world incidents involving autonomous AI agents, comparative national policy approaches, and the open risk questions that governments, scientists, and the public must urgently address. Key Concepts or Theories Machine Learning: Defined as advanced curve fitting — using large datasets to identify statistical correlations and hidden connections between variables at a scale and speed impossible for human observers Deep Learning: An extension of machine learning focused on value judgments and subjective interpretation, enabling large language models (LLMs) to generate contextually relevant, non-pre-programmed responses Agentic AI / Multi-Agent Systems: AI agents that operate autonomously within defined engineering constraints, executing tasks inside or outside an LLM shell, including interacting with the internet Graph Engineering / Auto-Research: An innovation pioneered by figures such as Andres Karpathy, in which a "conductor" agent autonomously creates and coordinates sub-agents to solve complex problems collaboratively and efficiently Hallucination: A persistent flaw in LLMs where the model generates confident but factually incorrect outputs, particularly in speed-optimized modes with reduced reasoning First Actor Privilege: The geopolitical and economic advantage gained by whichever nation or company reaches a technological milestone first, allowing them to set standards others must follow Data and Cloud Sovereignty: The emerging field concerned with who owns AI infrastructure, on what software it runs, and whether it can be disabled by a foreign actor Important Questions Raised How do we govern AI technologies that are evolving faster than any existing regulatory framework can address? Who bears liability when an AI agent causes consumer harm, and what standards should define permissible AI behavior? How can frontier AI models be made accessible and affordable to the global majority who currently only use free, lower-capability versions? How do we protect sensitive personal, institutional, and biological research data from being ingested and used by LLM training pipelines? How can international collaboration be achieved on AI governance when dozens of governments have competing priorities and approaches? What safeguards are needed to prevent agentic AI systems from creating new classes of biological threats that current detection and remediation systems cannot handle? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives Over 4 billion people globally have had direct personal interaction with a large language model, making AI governance an urgent and worldwide concern Machine learning is fundamentally advanced statistical curve fitting; deep learning adds the capacity for subjective, contextual reasoning Agentic and multi-agent AI systems can operate autonomously and, as demonstrated by the DSC Wiki and Hugging Face incidents, can break out of intended operational boundaries in unexpected ways Graph engineering represents a major leap in AI capability, enabling conductor-led teams of sub-agents to solve problems faster and more accurately than previous single-agent approaches No country currently has comprehensive, effective hard law governing AI; the EU AI Act is the most advanced but is already being outpaced by technological development The U.S. administration's dominant policy frame is competitive urgency — prioritizing winning the AI race over imposing safety regulations that might slow innovation China is investing heavily in renewable energy and grid infrastructure to power massive data center expansion, giving it a structural advantage in AI compute capacity The U.S. power grid, largely 50–70 years old, is a significant bottleneck for domestic AI infrastructure growth LLMs reflect the cultural and linguistic norms of their predominantly American and European training data, creating challenges for global deployment Biological research intersecting with AI — including genomic modification and synthetic biology — represents one of the highest-risk and least-governed frontiers Public AI literacy is critically underdeveloped, and education about responsible AI use is urgently needed Topic 1: How Large Language Models and Agentic AI Work Large language models emerged as a transformative technology approximately five years ago with the release of GPT-3, which for the first time allowed users to receive non-pre-programmed responses to open-ended prompts. Prior systems relied on scripted, triage-based responses. Since then, rapid innovation has produced increasingly capable models — including Mythos (from Anthropic), Astra (from OpenAI), Grok, Gemini, Perplexity, and others — each pushing the boundaries of reasoning, autonomy, and real-world interaction. At the foundational level, machine learning is best understood as sophisticated curve fitting: running millions to hundreds of millions of permutations across vast datasets to identify statistical correlations that would be impossible for humans to detect manually. A landmark example is AlphaFold, whose deep learning capabilities unlocked the field of protein folding prediction — previously considered near-impossible — and opened an entirely new methodology in biological science. Deep learning extends machine learning by enabling models to make value judgments and interpret subjective, contextual information. When a user inputs a prompt, the model breaks it down into tokens, assigns probabilistic weights to potential outcomes, and selects the most contextually appropriate response. Training involves running through massive datasets — including much of the internet — to minimize prediction error over time. A key limitation is hallucination: LLMs will sometimes generate confident but incorrect answers, particularly when reasoning depth is reduced for speed. Another systemic issue is cultural bias — because training data skews heavily toward American and European online behavior, models struggle to serve global populations with different cultural norms, languages, and values. This was directly observed in deployment work with UNDRR, where generating equally applicable outputs across contexts from Mexico to South Asia proved extremely difficult. Agentic AI refers to systems where individual agents are given a core mission and engineering constraints, then operate autonomously — either within an LLM environment or by interacting with the broader internet. Graph engineering takes this further: a single "conductor" agent evaluates a problem, spawns specialized sub-agents, and coordinates them as a team. The analogy offered was the difference between recording each instrument separately and stitching the audio together in post-production versus recording a full symphony live — the latter producing a richer, more coherent result. This approach yields faster, more accurate, and more robust outputs, but also introduces new governance challenges around visibility and control. Relevant Q\&A 1 Question: What is the difference between machine learning and deep learning? Answer: Machine learning is curve fitting — identifying statistical correlations across large datasets without assigning subjective value. Deep learning adds the capacity for value judgments and contextual reasoning, enabling LLMs to interpret nuanced, open-ended prompts and generate human-like responses. 2 Question: What are hallucinations and can they be eliminated? Answer: Hallucinations occur when an LLM generates confident but factually incorrect outputs. They are reduced — but never fully eliminated — by increasing reasoning intensity and using adversarial review

  6. Sep 9

    Sam Weiss Evans on Transforming American Biosecurity

    Transforming American Biosecurity: How the biosecurity governing landscape is changing and how you can help Sam Weiss Evans, D. Phil., Senior Advisor at the Federation of American Scientists About the speaker Dr. Sam Weiss Evans is a Senior Advisor at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). At FAS, Sam is working to bring about foundational biosecurity and biosafety governance reform. He recently completed a term as a Senior Policy Advisor for the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, where he led the Commission’s work on biosecurity, biosafety, standards, and responsible innovation. Prior to joining NSCEB, Sam was a Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University, jointly with the Kennedy School of Government’s Program on Science, Technology & Society, and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He has spent the past twenty years studying and building experimental governance capacity in bioengineering and several other areas of emerging technology and holds a D.Phil. from Oxford University. Related links: Video – Opening remarks for the National Academy of Medicine / CEPI recent workshop on Preparing for a Future of AI-Enabled Biotechnology (5 minutes) evansresearch.org > LinkedIn > --- Zoom Overview This colloquium talk, delivered by Sam Weiss Evans of the Federation of American Scientists, addressed the current state of biosecurity governance in the United States and the need for systemic reform. Drawing on his experience at the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnologies and the Harvard Kennedy School, Sam presented a critical analysis of how the U.S. currently manages biosecurity threats and proposed a more structured, cyclical approach to governance. The talk was the second in a series on biosecurity and related governance issues hosted by the Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Center. Key Concepts or Theories Whoops-Then-Fix (WTF) Governing: The current reactive model of biosecurity governance, where policy responses are triggered only after problems emerge, often resulting in fragmented and ineffective oversight. Design-Build-Test-Learn Cycle: A proposed alternative governance framework borrowed from engineering, emphasizing iterative assessment, innovation, testing, and deployment of biosecurity policies. Biosecurity Whack-a-Mole: A metaphor describing the issue-by-issue reactive approach to biosecurity, where attention jumps between emerging threats without addressing systemic root causes. Paradigm Shift (Kuhnian Framework): The application of Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions to biosecurity governance, using anomalies in the current system to justify and drive structural reform. Fractal Democracy: A concept introduced to describe a governance model that maintains democratic contestability at multiple levels, allowing diverse communities to have a say in how biosecurity concerns are addressed. Gene Synthesis and Digital-to-Physical Biology: The process of converting digital genetic code into physical biological constructs, identified as a key governance gap with at least 7 federal agencies holding partial jurisdiction but no unified oversight. Important Questions Raised Where has biosecurity governance gone wrong such that it needs reform? Who should be in charge of tracing the entire lifespan of a new biotechnology? How do we balance valuable community feedback with potential public misunderstanding of complex biotechnologies? How can moratoriums be replaced or supplemented with more robust, scalable governance structures? What can the U.S. learn from international examples of biosecurity and biotechnology governance? What is the one small, achievable action individuals can take to contribute to biosecurity reform? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives The current U.S. biosecurity governance system operates reactively, addressing threats only after they emerge rather than proactively building systemic capacity. Biosecurity oversight is fragmented across at least 7 federal agencies, none of which holds a complete picture or full authority over emerging biotechnology risks. A design-build-test-learn cycle, adapted from engineering, offers a more coherent and iterative model for biosecurity governance reform. Moratoriums, while useful as temporary pauses, are insufficient as long-term governance tools and must be replaced by structured, scalable systems. The loss of Chevron deference has complicated agencies' ability to independently govern new and emerging technology spaces. International examples, such as Indigenous-led innovation governance in Canada and New Zealand, offer valuable methodological insights for U.S. reform efforts. Individuals can contribute to biosecurity reform through research, policy writing, fellowship programs, shaping funding landscapes, and joining government bodies. The single most impactful small action is to consistently ask "whose science?" and "for whom?" when engaging with claims about scientific objectivity and research priorities. Topic 1: The Failure of Current Biosecurity Governance The existing U.S. biosecurity governance structure is characterized by what Sam Weiss Evans calls a "whoops-then-fix" (WTF) methodology. Rather than proactively building governance capacity, the system waits for a problem to emerge, then reaches for the nearest available tool and places it wherever is most politically expedient. This has resulted in biosecurity responsibilities being scattered across multiple agencies — each established in a different era, with different mandates and cultures — none of which can see or manage the full picture. A central example is the governance of gene synthesis, the process of converting digital genetic sequences into physical biological constructs. Despite over 20 years of awareness of this governance gap, no binding federal requirements exist to restrict what sequences can be synthesized. At least 7 agencies hold partial jurisdiction, yet none has the authority or appetite to unify oversight without top-level White House support and sustained political will. This fragmented system persists in part because it is functionally convenient for all stakeholders: companies appear responsible by raising concerns, agencies appear responsive by reacting to them, and the hype cycle around emerging biotechnology keeps funding flowing. However, the system produces few substantive obligations and is largely performative — effective only as long as nothing seriously goes wrong. Relevant Q\&A Question (online, Daryl Stover): Where has biosecurity gone wrong such that it needs reform? Answer (Sam Weiss Evans): The system is structured around reactive, issue-by-issue responses rather than systemic reform. Biosecurity concerns are spread across the government in ways that made sense at specific historical moments but are now misaligned with the pace and complexity of emerging biotechnology. The result is a performative system that satisfies appearances without producing substantive safety improvements. Topic 2: A Proposed Reform Framework — The Design-Build-Test-Learn Cycle Sam Weiss Evans proposed restructuring biosecurity governance around a design-build-test-learn cycle, adapted from engineering practice. This framework clusters biosecurity reform into four phases: assessment, innovation, testing, and deployment. In the assessment phase, the goal is to understand what is actually working in practice, including through no-fault reporting systems for laboratory incidents — a capability the U.S. currently lacks systematically. The NIH is currently proposing a national biosafety analysis center, and its draft guidelines are open for public comment. An equivalent of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for biotechnological events could enable root cause analysis and feed lessons back into governance design. In the innovation phase, the focus shifts to creating new organizational and financial structures for biosecurity — including novel funding mechanisms, market incentives, and research and development frameworks that embed safety and security considerations from the earliest stages of ideation through publication and beyond. In the testing phase, governance prototypes would be stress-tested in sandboxed environments before full deployment, with appropriate legal infrastructure already in place to enable this. In the deployment phase, successful governance innovations would be rolled out — whether as new training programs, regulations, or technical infrastructure such as AI model weighting systems. This cycle contrasts sharply with the current system, where each new biosecurity concern requires rebuilding the entire governance apparatus from scratch, consuming enormous resources and time. Relevant Q\&A Question (audience): In the IT world, beta testing covers many of the problems you mentioned, including whack-a-mole. To what extent could that model be adopted in biosecurity? Answer (Sam Weiss Evans): Cybersecurity and IT development offer a rich set of analogies for biosecurity governance, and this is an underexplored area. However, a key distinction is that biological "bugs" are actual living organisms that can evolve and are far harder to control than software bugs. That said, the cybersecurity industry grew from nothing into a multi-trillion-dollar sector, and biosecurity has the potential to follow a similar trajectory. Topic 3: Paradigm Shift and Strategies for Reform Sam Weiss Evans framed the needed governance transformation as a Kuhnian paradigm shift — one driven by the accumulation of anomalies that the current system cannot adequately handle, such as gene drives, cloud labs, and autonomous laboratories. He outlined four interconnected strategies for achieving this shift: Narrative Structure: Telling a compelling story about what an alternative governance system could look like, using the design-build-test-learn framework to he

  7. Sep 2

    Christopher Cummings on Risk, Responsibility, and Standardization

    Risk, Responsibility, and Standardization: Lessons from multiple NATO-Sponsored Biotechnology Workshops Christopher L. Cummings, Ph.D. Research Social Scientist at the US Army Corp of Engineers and Senior Research Fellow at the GES Center, NC State University About the speaker Christopher L. Cummings, PhD, is a behavioral theorist and social science researcher specializing in risk perception, public engagement, and the governance of emerging technologies. He leads the Center for Health Engineering at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, where he integrates behavioral science with engineering, risk analysis, and public health systems. At North Carolina State University, he is a Senior Research Fellow with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center and a Research Social Scientist with the NSF-funded Precision Microbiome Engineering Research Center, where he examines the societal and governance dimensions of biotechnology. Dr. Cummings has directed multiple NATO Advanced Research Workshops addressing biotechnology convergence, risk governance, standardization, and defense resilience. He also served on a National Academies committee reviewing environmental, biosafety, and biosecurity considerations for synthetic cell research. Author of more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and Secondary Risk Theory, his work connects technical risk assessment with public values, trust, policy acceptance, and strategic communication. Google Scholar > --- Zoom Overview This colloquium session, hosted by the Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Center at NC State, featured a presentation by Dr. Christopher Cummings, Director of the Center for Health Engineering within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC) and Senior Research Fellow at GES. Dr. Cummings presented findings and lessons learned from a series of NATO-funded Advanced Research Workshops (ARWs) focused on biotechnology risk, responsibility, and standardization. The talk addressed the growing gap between rapidly advancing biotechnologies and the governance frameworks intended to oversee them, with particular emphasis on the need for international standards, adaptive governance, and responsible innovation. Key Concepts or Theories The Pacing Problem: The phenomenon where technological development outstrips the pace of regulatory and governance responses Standards as Governance Tools: The use of voluntary, flexible, and performance-based standards as a bridge between hard law and rapid innovation ELSI (Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications): A framework for identifying non-technical barriers across the biotechnology development pipeline TAPIC Model: A governance values framework comprising Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity, and Capacity Soft Law: Non-binding governance mechanisms such as voluntary consensus standards, codes of conduct, and ethics guidelines used to guide behavior in the absence of formal legislation Information Hazards: Situations where scientific knowledge itself poses a potential risk if disseminated without appropriate safeguards Interoperability: The ability of different nations and sectors to use shared technical and safety standards to collaborate effectively across borders Important Questions Raised How can international standards be developed that respect national regulatory differences while enabling cross-border collaboration? What are the risks and hazards of standardization itself, including blind spots and power imbalances? How do information hazards from AI-enabled biotechnology get governed before they cause harm? How can data sharing be encouraged in a competitive landscape where both market and national security interests incentivize secrecy? How do human values get institutionalized into technology governance in a durable, evolving way? What role does public perception, misinformation, and media framing play in shaping biotechnology investment and policy? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives Biotechnology is advancing at a pace that far outstrips existing governance and regulatory frameworks — a phenomenon known as the "pacing problem." Standards, particularly flexible and performance-based ones, can serve as effective governance tools to bridge the gap between innovation and regulation. Non-technical barriers — including public trust, ethical concerns, and misinformation — are significant drivers of biotechnology failure in the marketplace. International collaboration through forums like NATO Advanced Research Workshops is essential for developing shared frameworks and fostering cross-sector trust. Data sharing remains a critical and unresolved challenge, complicated by both market competitiveness and national security concerns. The TAPIC model (Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity, Capacity) offers an aspirational framework for responsible governance. AI and biotechnology convergence is creating new and compounding risks that current governance structures are ill-equipped to handle. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles, including early ELSI assessment, can help anticipate and mitigate downstream societal harms. Topic 1: Background and Context — Dr. Christopher Cummings and the NATO Advanced Research Workshops Dr. Christopher Cummings introduced himself as an NC State alumnus who began his career as a communication scholar studying political rhetoric before being drawn into science and risk communication through a nanoparticles research grant. Over time, his work evolved to span academic, governmental, and international domains. He currently leads the Center for Health Engineering within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC), where his team conducts highly academic research in service to government, including work for the Principal Director for Biotechnology in the Office of the Undersecretary of War. Dr. Cummings has directed multiple NATO-funded Advanced Research Workshops (ARWs), including a 2024 meeting in Malta focused on biotechnology standards, and an upcoming April workshop in Brussels on biomanufacturing standards across the NATO enterprise. These workshops bring together experts from across NATO member nations to identify emerging problems, deliberate in working groups, and produce actionable publications and frameworks. He also noted his recent appointment to the National Academies Committee on the External Review of Environmental Biosafety and Biosecurity Considerations for Synthetic Cell Research and Development. Relevant Q\&A Question: How do you get industry participants to show up and genuinely participate in these workshops? Answer: Dr. Cummings explained that industry participants benefit from direct access to national leaders and decision-makers who can influence commercialization pathways. The workshops also provide visibility into larger international conversations that directly affect R\&D agendas, which is valuable even for participants who are focused on narrow technical work. Topic 2: The Pacing Problem and the Role of Standards in Biotechnology Governance A central theme of Dr. Cummings' presentation was the "pacing problem" — the persistent gap between the speed of biotechnology development and the ability of governance systems to keep up. Technologies such as CRISPR, AI-driven biology, and synthetic biology are evolving exponentially, while regulatory responses remain slow and incremental. Traditional hard law is too rigid and time-consuming to address rapidly emerging risks effectively. Dr. Cummings argued that standards — particularly voluntary, performance-based, and adaptive standards — offer a practical alternative. Unlike hard law, standards can be updated more quickly, provide clarity for developers and investors, and enable a degree of international consistency even amid regulatory divergence. He emphasized that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work given the breadth of biotechnology across health, agriculture, energy, environment, and defense sectors. Key lessons from the NATO ARWs include: Divergent national approaches create duplication, trade barriers, and collaboration failures Interoperability at key junctions such as tech transfer and international trade is essential Conformance testing and certification should be required before widespread product use Global data sharing and biosafety validation best practices are critical but remain contested Performance-based standards that focus on outcomes rather than rigid procedural rules are better suited to biological complexity Historical examples such as the failure of Golden Rice due to lack of public trust, the 15-year regulatory delay of the AquAdvantage salmon, and preemptive state bans on cell-cultured meats illustrated the real-world consequences of neglecting non-technical barriers. Relevant Q\&A Question: Is the intersection of AI and biotechnology — including the potential to generate functioning pathogens — a topic discussed at these workshops? Answer: Dr. Cummings confirmed that information hazards are a central concern. He noted that top journals already screen submissions for potentially dangerous knowledge, and that his colleague Dr. Benjamin Trump is actively working with AI companies to implement guardrails. He also noted that AI can be used defensively — for example, to accelerate vaccine development — and that alarming headlines, while concerning, can serve a useful agenda-setting function by prompting government action. Question: Could you speak more about negative labeling and its parallels to AI-enabled products? Answer: Dr. Cummings noted that the GMO debate became so contentious that the U.S. government eliminated the term entirely, replacing it with "bioengineered" under a national standard. He expressed concern that similar dynamics are emerging around AI-enabled products, particularly given EU AI Act labeling requirements taking effect in December. Topic 3: Misinformation, Publ

  8. Apr 15

    Diana Bowman – Governing Emerging Technologies in the Public Interest

    Final public colloquium of the semester! How can governance keep pace with emerging technologies? Dr. Diana Bowman, inaugural Dean of the School of Law at RMIT University, will reflect on adaptive, responsible approaches to law, innovation, and the public interest. -------- Recorded from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this podcast examines how biotechnologies take shape in the world: microbiome engineering in built environments, gene editing and gene drives, forest and agricultural genomics, data governance and equity, risk and regulation, sci-art, and public engagement in practice. -------- A Conversation on Governing Emerging Technologies: Law, Innovation, and the Public Good Emerging technologies often outpace the legal and governance systems meant to guide them. In this informal conversation, Dr. Diana Bowman will reflect on how law, regulation, and institutions can respond more thoughtfully to emerging technologies across areas such as public health, nanotechnology, precision medicine, and smart cities. The discussion will consider what “smarter” governance can look like in practice, including how societies might better anticipate uncertainty, address ethical and social concerns, and support innovation while protecting the public interest. Related links: Learning From Emerging Technology Governance for Guiding Quantum Technology , Marchant, G.E., Bazzi, R., Bowman, D. et al.,  (2024). Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Paper No. 4923230. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4923230 Emerging Technologies and the Future of Assisted Reproductive Technology , Johnson, W.G. and Bowman, D. ,  (2020). 60(3) Jurimetrics J., 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3584803 Download seminar poster Diana Bowman, PhD Dean of the School of Law at RMIT University | Profile Dr. Diana Bowman is inaugural Dean of the School of Law at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Before joining RMIT, she served as Associate Dean for Applied Research and Partnerships and Professor of Law at Arizona State University, where her work bridged law, public health, sustainability, and innovation. Her research examines the governance and regulation of emerging technologies, with a focus on how legal and policy systems can foster innovation while engaging the ethical, legal, and societal dimensions of technological change. She has published extensively on topics including nanotechnology, precision medicine, reproductive technologies, smart cities, and other emerging technology governance challenges. The Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Colloquium is a seminar series that brings in speakers to present and stimulate discussion on a variety of topics related to existing and proposed biotechnologies and their place within broader societal changes. GES Colloquium is taught by Dr. Zack Brown, and the seminars serve as a great opportunity for our students to build their networks and grow as professionals. To support their efforts, we encourage you to join our in-person seminars, which will now take place in Nelson 4305. Remember, we regularly post colloquium seminars as videos on Panopto and on our GES Lectures podcast, allowing you to revisit or catch up on these recordings at your convenience. Please subscribe to the GES newsletter and LinkedIn for updates. Genetic Engineering and Society Center Colloquium Home | Zoom Registration | Watch Colloquium Videos | LinkedIn | Newsletter GES Center at NC State University—Integrating scientific knowledge & diverse public values in shaping the futures of biotechnology. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State Find out more at https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
4 Ratings

About

Recorded live from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this show explores how biotechnologies move from lab to life: microbiome engineering in buildings, CRISPR in agriculture and forestry, gene drives and integrated pest management, data governance and benefit-sharing, risk analysis and regulation, sci-art collaborations, and practical models of responsible innovation and public engagement. Episodes feature researchers, students, and community partners in candid conversations about decisions, trade-offs, and impacts. Learn more at go.ncsu.edu/ges and sign up for our newsletter at http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State