Consumer fear of GMOs is entrenched and funded, making education efforts ineffective. A better strategy is to use newer technologies like AI-driven breeding or CRISPR to achieve the same goals without triggering irrational consumer backlash, effectively sidestepping the debate.

Related Insights

Many object to embryo selection because they mistakenly believe it involves altering genes. In reality, the technology simply reveals information about natural genetic variations already present in IVF embryos, allowing parents to choose, not tinker.

To normalize the ethically fraught practice of embryo gene editing, startups like Preventive are shifting the narrative from just curing disease to radical cost reduction. They claim editing embryos could cost $5,000, a fraction of the $2 million price tag for current adult gene therapies.

The debate over food's future is often a binary battle between tech-driven "reinvention" (CRISPR, AI) and a return to traditional, organic "de-invention." The optimal path is a synthesis of the two, merging the wisdom of ancient farming practices with the most advanced science to increase yields sustainably without degrading the environment.

Initial public fear over new technologies like AI therapy, while seemingly negative, is actually productive. It creates the social and political pressure needed to establish essential safety guardrails and regulations, ultimately leading to safer long-term adoption.

The tech world is fixated on trivial AI uses while monumental breakthroughs in healthcare go underappreciated. Innovations like CRISPR and GLP-1s can solve systemic problems like chronic disease and rising healthcare costs, offering far greater societal ROI and impact on longevity than current AI chatbots.

CRISPR reframes its commercial strategy away from traditional drug launches. By viewing gene editing as a 'molecular surgery,' the company adopts a go-to-market approach similar to medical devices, focusing on paradigm shifts in hospital procedures and physician training.

The commercial advantage of one-time CRISPR/Cas9 therapies is shrinking. Advancements in RNA modalities like siRNA now offer durable, long-lasting effects with a potentially safer profile. This creates a challenging risk-reward calculation for permanent gene edits in diseases where both technologies are applicable, especially as investor sentiment sours on CRISPR's long-term safety.

When developing AI for sensitive industries like government, anticipate that some customers will be skeptical. Design AI features with clear, non-AI alternatives. This allows you to sell to both "AI excited" and "AI skeptical" jurisdictions, ensuring wider market penetration.

Human medicine faces long, expensive regulatory paths for AI-designed drugs. In contrast, agriculture benefits from faster R&D cycles because, as the speaker notes, "nobody cares if you kill plants." This allows more shots on goal and faster market entry for AI innovations.

Just as YouTube enabled anyone to become a content creator, cheaper gene editing tools are enabling a "long tail" of niche crop varieties. This will shift agriculture away from a few commodity crops towards a more personalized, diverse food system.

Innovators Should Design Around GMO Fears Rather Than Fight a Futile Education Battle | RiffOn