CRISPR in Wheat: Patents, Breeding Advances, and Emerging Challenges
Keywords:
CRISPR patents, wheat breeding, genome editing, intellectual propertyAbstract
CRISPR and its derivatives, such as prime editing and base editing, have a significant potential for precision biology in plant breeding, particularly in wheat. This technology can help develop climate-resilient wheat varieties, improve stress tolerance, enhance nutrient use efficiency, and increase yield potential. However, the concentration of CRISPR patents in a few academic institutions and corporations in the Global North creates a "Genome Editing Divide," impacting innovation pathways, research incentives, economic power in the seed value chain, and global food sovereignty. This study explores the implications of this divide on wheat innovation systems in the Global South and argues that the current intellectual property (IP) landscape favors privatization and profit-maximization over public good-oriented research, potentially undermining food security and sustainable development goals. Alternative governance models and licensing frameworks are proposed to ensure equitable access to CRISPR technology for wheat breeding, aiming to safeguard global food security and reduce inequalities in agricultural innovation. The analysis shows a concentration of research output in the Global North, particularly in countries like Switzerland and UK. This indicates a form of digital colonialism, restricting the Global South's ability to develop locally adapted, climate-resilient wheat varieties. The patent network reveals a concentration of power among key institutions, limiting access to essential technologies for wheat improvement and reinforcing the "Genome Editing Divide.
Downloads
References
Anzalone, Andrew V., Peyton B. Randolph, and Jessie R. Davis, et al. 2019. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576: 149–157. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1711-4
Broad Institute. 2023. CRISPR Licensing for Agriculture and Agribusiness. Zugriff am 10. https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic-alliances-and-partnering/CRISPR-licensing-agriculture-and-agribusiness
Byerlee, Derek, and Harvey Jesse Dubin. 2010. Crop Improvement in the CGIAR as a Global Success Story of Open Access and International Collaboration. International Journal of the Commons 4: 452–480. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26523031?seq=1
Cohen, Jon, and Amy Maxmen. 2019. China’s CRISPR push. Science 364: 908–911.
Cohen, Jon. 2017. The bitter fight over the billion-dollar gene-editing tool CRISPR. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/bitter-fight-over-billion-dollar-gene-editing-tool-crispr
Cong, Le, F. Ann Ran, David Cox, Shuailiang Lin, and Robert Barretto, et al. 2013. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339: 819–823. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1231143
Court of Justice of the European Union. 2018. Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive. Press Release No 111/18: 1-2. https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-07/cp180111en.pdf
Deibel, Eric. 2022. Open genetic code: on open source in the life sciences. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 18: 1–27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4513027/
Entine, Johanna, Maria Sueli S. Felipe, and Jan-Hendrik Groenewald, et al. 2021. Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world. Transgenic Research 30: 551–584. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11248-021-00257-8
Eriksson, Dennis, K. B. Kutschera, Jonas B. Jonasson, and Nils Rostoks, et al. 2020. A Swedish Perspective on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques. Physiologia Plantarum 168: 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13063.
Glover, Dominic, James Sumberg, and Jens A. Anderson. 2016. The adoption problem; or why we still understand so little about technological change in African agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 48: 3–6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5367/oa.2016.0235
Graff, Gregory D., David Zilberman, and Alan B. Bennett. 2019. The battle for intellectual property rights: the CRISPR/Cas9 patent conflict. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11496.003.0008.
Halewood, Michael, Isabel López Noriega, and Selim Louafi, et al. 2018. Gene editing and access and benefit sharing. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values, edited by The National Academies Press: 215–232. https://doi.org/10.17226/23405.
Heller, Michael A., and Rebecca S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280: 698–701. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698.
IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/
Jinek, Martin, Krzysztof Chylinski, and Ines Fonfara, et al. 2012. A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337: 816–821. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1225829
Kahl, Linda J., and Aashish R. Arora. 2021. The CRISPR-Cas Intellectual Property Landscape: A Primer. The CRISPR Journal 4: 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2021.29055.lka.
Kryder, R. David, and Stanley P. Kowalski et al. 2000. The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of pro-Vitamin A Rice (GoldenRice™): A Preliminary Freedom-to-Operate Review. University of New Hampshire. https://scholars.unh.edu/law_facpub/167/
Lazard Geopolitical Advisory. 2021. The Geopolitics of Biotechnology. Lazard Geopolitical Advisory: 1-45. https://www.lazard.com/media/u5bj5tlh/the-geopolitics-of-biotech.pdf
Louwaars, Niels, and Bram De Jonge, et al. 2022. Intellectual property and access to CRISPR-Cas technology for agricultural research and development in the Global South. Frontiers in Plant Science 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1082720.
Lusser, Maria, Claudia Parisi, Diego Plan, and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2012. Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nature Bio-technology 30: 231–239. https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.2142
Nelson, Rebecca, Daniel de la Torre, and Maricelis Acevedo, et al. 2019. The role of public sector crop breeding in the face of climate change and food security. Plant Breeding and Genetics, herausgegeben von Jameel M. Al-Khayri, Shri Mohan Jain, und Dennis V. Johnson: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93518-8_1.
Ouma, Stefan. 2020. Farming as Financial Asset: Global Finance and the Making of Institutional Landscapes. Agenda Publishing: 1-220. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13840b0
Pardey, Philip G., Julian M. Alston, and Connie Chan-Kang. 2016. Public food and agricultural research in high-income countries: past and future. The Evolving Economics of Agricultural Research, edited by Philip G. Pardey and Julian M. Alston, University Press: 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/book.77117.
Scoones, Ian, and John Thompson. 2011. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development. Rugby. Practical Action Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780440645.
Sherkow, Jacob S. 2017. The CRISPR Patent Interference Showdown Is On: How Did We Get Here and What Comes Next? Stanford Law School Blog. https://law.stanford.edu/2017/02/07/the-crispr-patent-interference-showdown-is-on-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-comes-next/.
Sherkow, Jacob S. 2021. The CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Dispute and the Transatlantic Division of Labour in Biotechnology. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 52: 1233–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01116-z.
Shewry, Peter R., and Sandra J. Hey. 2015. The contribution of wheat to human diet and health. Food and Energy Security 4: 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.64.
Van Der Meer, Piet, and Manju Bhardwaj. 2022. Governance of new plant breeding technologies: The CRISPR case. The Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies: A Global Perspective, herausgegeben von Jennifer Thomson, Wageningen Academic Publishers: 45–68. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-939-0_2.
Van Overwalle, Geertrui. 2006. The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive in Belgium and its After-effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 37: 889–920. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1719136
Velasquez, Juan D. 2023. TechMiner: Analysis of bibliographic datasets using Python. SoftwareX 23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235271102300153X
Welch, Eric W., Fabiana Fonseca, and Flavia de Andrade. 2017. The Nagoya Protocol and the diffusion of genetic resources. Environmental Science & Policy 78: 173–180.
Zetsche, Bernd, Jonathan S. Gootenberg, Omar O. Abudayyeh, Ian M. Slaymaker, and Kira S. Makarova, et al. 2015. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163: 759–771. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26422227/
Zhang, Yuan et al. 2021. Genome Editing in Hexaploid Bread Wheat. Nature Plants 44: 405-441. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00896-9.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
