by Dr Roli Roberts, Harlton Resident and Senior Editor, PLOS Biology
Can cell and molecular biology play a significant role in achieving planetary sustainability? This was the issue of the moment at the “Integrating Cell and Planetary Scales to Address Climate Resilience” conference at the Gulbenkian Museum, in Lisbon, which I had the opportunity to attend this April.
This conference, sponsored by the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO), was framed as a way of galvanising cell and molecular biologists – people who tend to think about very small things – to think about how they might tackle the very large problems that currently face humanity.
As well as about 100 active research scientists from around the world, the meeting was attended by the Chief Scientist of the World Health Organisation, the Director of Climate & Health for the Wellcome Trust, representatives of several other major research funders (UKRI, European Commission, Pasteur Network, Max Planck Society, EMBO, Novo Nordisk, Gates Foundation, Moore Foundation), editors of four international journals (including me), and the Portuguese minister for energy and the environment.
Many of the scientific talks focused on using genetic modification of plants and microbes (bacteria and fungi) to reduce emissions, produce foods and other materials more sustainably, enhance carbon capture and tackle pollution. One interesting suggestion involved the use of bacteria that can consume CO2 instead of sugar to generate sustainable food from power station flue gases, thereby killing two birds with one stone (sustainable production and carbon capture). Here’s a list of my highlights:
· Improved crops that can be grown on poorer soils
· Cyanobacteria engineered to make hydrogen
· Bioplastics that reduce dependency on fossil fuels (and increase biodegradability)
· “Bionic leaves” that combine photovoltaics with CO2-consuming microbes
· Biomonitoring systems for water contamination
· An artisanal chocolatier making chocolate from bacterial fat!
Most of the ingenious ideas cooked up by scientists, however, are likely to hit problems when implemented in the real world. These usually stem from issues of scalability and economic constraints. For example, microbial foods are only economically feasible for high-price items (e.g. meat replacement, rather than staple foods), as they can’t be made for less than $1-2 per kg. And these would need to have appealing flavours and textures to gain any market traction, which may prove challenging…
To give you some idea of the tone of the conference, here are a few quotes that particularly struck me (to the extent that I posted them on Bluesky!):
· “80% of the nitrogen in your body has been through the Haber-Bosch process by which industrial fertiliser is made.”
· “The way in which our universities have divided up our sciences does not reflect the way in which nature has divided up its problems.”
· “We have a cultural problem – green parties don’t like GMOs or animal work, even though we share aims. Also [Trump] is portraying green aims as anti-progress and holding us back. We need to make sure that green is seen as progressive.”
· “Focus on the fierce urgency of now; the choice between curiosity-driven science and future aims is a false dichotomy.”
· “Do not flinch from watching the news; science is a source of optimism and hope in the future.”
· “I see a future in which nature gives us a helping hand. Instead of destroying the natural world, why can’t we use it to solve the kinds of problems that we are facing.”
I should say that the elephant in the room was the worsening situation for American scientists, whose work on these very pressing issues is being discouraged and defunded at the time when they’re most needed. As one speaker put it, “The loss of US federal employees from both national and international organisations is an acute loss of global expertise at a time when we can least afford it. At a point when we need global solutions to global problems, some nations are seeing the answer to lie instead in nationalism.”
Despite this gloomy background, my feeling was that most attendees went away with a sense of renewed purpose, and a resolve to meet again in a few years’ time with more focused aims. They’ll also work on a white paper to crystallise some of the bigger picture ideas that emerged from the panel discussions and round-table sessions.