Fifty years ago, a group of scientists gathered at Asilomar, a quiet conference center on California’s rugged coastline, to debate a question that would define the future of biotechnology: How do we regulate genetic modification without killing innovation? They knew they were sitting on something big—recombinant DNA technology had the potential to reshape medicine, agriculture, and industry. But they also knew that fear, if left unchecked, could shut down progress before it even began.

What came out of that meeting was a global framework—risk-based, science-driven, and designed to allow innovation while addressing legitimate safety concerns. It was, in many ways, a model for how to regulate emerging technology.

Fast forward to today, and we’re at another Asilomar moment. Genetic technologies like CRISPR, gene-edited crops, and synthetic biology are advancing at warp speed, but the regulatory frameworks governing them? Stuck in the past.

That’s why Trends in Biotechnology has devoted a special issue to the question of how genetic modification should be regulated in the 21st century. The conclusion? If we want to feed a growing world, combat climate change, and revolutionize medicine, we need to rethink the regulatory roadblocks that are slowing things down.

The Cost of Fear-Based Regulation

Take genetically modified crops. Stuart Smyth and his colleagues argue in their opinion piece that many modern regulations have strayed from science and veered into politics. The result? Economic and environmental losses that are both staggering and unnecessary.

Consider this: Australia delayed the adoption of genetically modified canola for years. The cost? An estimated AUS $485 million in lost revenue, 6.5 million kilograms of unnecessary pesticide use, and 24.2 million extra kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not just bad policy—it’s bad economics and bad for the planet.

The lesson here is simple: If you make regulations about ideology rather than evidence, you don’t just slow down innovation—you actively make things worse.

📖 Read the full article

Why We’re Regulating the Wrong Thing

Another piece, by Simona Lubieniechi and her colleagues, makes an important point: We’ve been regulating genetic technologies based on how they were made rather than what they actually do. That might have made sense in the early days of biotech, but with the rise of gene-editing tools like CRISPR, it’s increasingly outdated.

Think about it: If you use traditional breeding, mutagenesis, or even CRISPR to tweak a crop’s genetics, the end result might be identical. But the first two methods are mostly unregulated, while CRISPR gets the full regulatory treatment—often delaying or even preventing life-changing innovations from reaching farmers and consumers.

The smarter approach? Regulate the traits, not the technology. That way, we focus on the real risks while giving scientists the freedom to build solutions that actually work.

📖 Read the full article

The Genetic Revolution in Medicine—and the Rules Holding It Back

It’s not just agriculture. Genetic technology is already transforming medicine, and the next breakthroughs could be game-changers—if regulation allows it.

Hans-Georg Dederer’s article explores how genetically engineered bacteria are already saving millions of lives by producing insulin, how gene therapies are offering hope for once-incurable diseases, and how xenotransplantation—using organs from genetically modified pigs—could help solve the organ shortage crisis.

But here’s the catch: Biotech-based medicine sits at the intersection of GMO regulation and pharmaceutical law, two of the most complex and heavily regulated industries on the planet. If policymakers can’t streamline these frameworks, we risk missing out on the next wave of medical breakthroughs.

📖 Read the full article

The Untapped Potential Beneath Our Feet

One of the biggest biotech opportunities might not be in our crops but in our soil.

Aranksha Thakor and Trevor Charles argue that soil microbes—tiny, unseen organisms that help plants grow—could be genetically engineered to replace chemical fertilizers, boost yields, and make agriculture more resilient to climate change. But here’s the problem: Many regulatory frameworks still treat microbes modified with recombinant DNA as if they were high-risk GMOs, preventing them from being deployed at scale.

It’s yet another example of where outdated rules are getting in the way of sustainable solutions.

📖 Read the full article

Time for a 21st-Century Asilomar

The Asilomar Conference didn’t just create guidelines for the safe use of genetic technology—it created a mindset. One that recognized both the potential and the risks of biotech and sought to strike a balance between them.

But today, that balance has been lost. Regulations that were once designed to enable safe innovation are now too often being used to slow it down.

If we’re serious about tackling food security, climate change, and global health, we need a new Asilomar moment—one that embraces science-based, risk-proportionate, and forward-looking policies.

Because the future of genetic innovation isn’t just about what we can do—it’s about what we’re allowed to do. And right now, the rules are standing in the way.