Why we need a cautious approach to the bio revolution

Planning for our planet's uncertain future has simplified many of the most complex problems we must collectively overcome as a global community. Are humans and big tech a part of the problem, or the solution?

The United Nations estimates that the global population will increase by 2 billion over the next 30 years. It’ll grow from 7.7 billion today to 9.7 billion in 2050, with a further predicted rise to 11 billion in 2100.

As a result, we’re increasingly concerned about the impact on food supplies and healthcare, with more people consuming a greater share of our planet's shrinking resources. Throw climate change into the mix and it's easy to see why many scientists believe we must act before it's too late.

Investment in the health and nutrition of future generations is already underway, with a wave of technological innovation ushering in what many scientists are calling a “bio revolution.” The convergence of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automation is driving rapid advances in biological science.

Now, we’re seeing futuristic concepts like genetics-based nutrition and hyper-personalized medicine making the transition from science fiction to reality.

Advancing healthcare with Biotech

The bio revolution gained momentum during the pandemic as scientists turned to biotech to better understand vaccine development and how Covid was spreading in societies. As the worlds of genomics, nanotechnology, and AI collided, we noticed a shift from reactive to a more proactive approach to healthcare. In addition, generalized medicine based on a set of averages is slowly being replaced by personalized care that’s based on an individual's unique biology.

It’s hoped that, after collecting data on billions of humans, AI will help scientists to make sense of the human genome. Armed with this knowledge, we can transition to a predictive and preventive approach that helps everyone to enjoy longer and healthier lives. But there are concerns that wealthier nations will emerge from the bio revolution stronger than those in developing countries. For the bio revolution to deliver on its promises, we need to be united on building a fairer, healthier world for everyone, everywhere, and not just the few.

Can a bio revolution in agriculture feed the world?

If analysts are correct in their predictions that the resources on planet Earth will soon be expected to feed more than 10 billion people, then we need to learn how to do more with less. The bio revolution is expected to play a crucial role in transforming the world of agriculture by leveraging technology and biology to increase yields while also reducing the carbon footprint of farming.

Finding new ways to feed the world while ensuring the food chain is more resilient against droughts, floods, and a growing number of threats is becoming a priority. As a result, we’re beginning to see science and technology converging to create meat from thin air and fish made from plants using tissue-culture technology.

Bayer AG, a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company, believes it has the answers to some pressing questions. It's currently exploring how combining innovative breeding technologies, biotechnology, and gene editing can be leveraged to create short-stature corn capable of surviving severe weather and minimizing crop losses.

This is where things can quickly get conflicting. We can all agree on the need to mitigate and reverse the damage we’re doing to our planet. But before rushing in, we need to ask more questions and learn lessons from our past. What the long-term impacts of consuming these foods will have on humans is a question that nobody can answer right now. Yet these questions are relevant today because our history has taught us that everything from talc-based baby powder to cigarettes was once promoted as healthy products, while chemical pesticides on food were deemed harmless.

With great power comes great responsibility

The convergence of science and technology is paving the way for innovative research projects that have the potential to transform not only our nutrition and health, but our entire lives. However, our previous experience with emerging technologies should have taught us some important lessons. Namely that moving fast and breaking things without thinking about the consequences could unwittingly lead to more problems than scientists set out to solve.

Scientists are currently focusing on ensuring that future generations will have access to basic human needs around health and nutrition. But it's equally as critical to consider the moral implications of biological science along the way. This will involve a delicate balance. Get it right, and we change the world for the better. But get it wrong, and we could be looking at disastrous consequences for the future citizens of the world.

For example, editing genes and embryos could change entire ecosystems and even species for the right reasons. However, it also raises moral questions, and we need to discuss on an international level how unequal access could exacerbate socioeconomic disparity and lead to other unintended consequences further down the line.

There’s no avoiding the harsh reality that we’re just beginning to understand social media and the impacts on society of the resulting dopamine-driven feedback loops. Similarly, manipulating the self-sustaining and self-replicating nature of biology could quickly run the risk of opening a Pandora's box that, once opened, delivers further dangers to the human race and entire ecosystems.

It's hoped that scientists adopt a more considered approach than big tech companies to ensure the risks created in the so-called bio revolution don't outweigh the promised benefits of new innovative solutions. Unfortunately, learning from our past mistakes rather than repeating them is not something that the human race traditionally excels at.

The convergence of science and technology promises to solve some of humanity's most significant issues. But the bigger questions are whether humanity is part of the problem or the solution. Will big tech aggravate or solve the climate change problem? For these reasons alone, I’ll be keeping the champagne on ice for the moment.