Invasive species cause billions of dollars in economic damage each year, from imported beetles demolishing crops to nonnative fish crowding out native species and devastating commercial and sport fishing.
Recent years have brought tremendous advances in our ability to combat such pests with genetic biocontrol, which involves modifying their genes in a way that disrupts their ability to reproduce. But these advances have sparked much confusion as well. Researchers, regulators, entrepreneurs and concerned citizens try to stay on the same page as innovations move from concept to — if appropriate — application at scale.
Michael Smanski, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biophysics, recognized the kind of challenges such confusion can wreak when he was in the very early stages of investigating genetic biocontrol as a way to keep invasive carp from destroying the balance of nature in Minnesota lakes and beyond. For example, stakeholders unfamiliar with the time required to create and test a new biotechnology in a laboratory setting may unnecessarily worry that an environmental release would occur in the near future.
“In reality, we were years away from any such thing,” Smanski says. “It was clear that we needed a shared language so that regulators, watershed district managers, lakeshore association members, technology developers and entrepreneurs could all kind of know exactly where we are, and what is the path forward — so they don’t have to worry that all of the sudden there’s going to be some new biotechnology in the lake behind their house.”
Fortunately for all involved, Smanski was familiar through other work with a system NASA uses to assess and communicate the maturity stages of innovations. Known as a technology readiness level (TRL) framework, the approach helps clarify for all involved where an innovation is on the concept-to-production-at-scale continuum. The resulting common context and order of operations provide a foundation for discussions not only about commercial viability but also about ethical, legal and social considerations. Ultimately, it creates alignment along a technology’s R&D trajectory and clarity around whether and when it is commercially deployed.
Over the course of two summers, Smanski led a series of workshops that brought together nearly three dozen representatives from academia, business, federal and state government, nonprofit organizations, tribes and consultancies to explore processes, preferences, milestones and other elements involved in developing and deploying invasive species control technologies. The result was a “how-to” document that synthesized and synchronized the various TRL steps as they apply to genetic control technologies, creating mutual understanding among everyone involved.
TRL | Description |
|---|---|
TRL 1–3 | Design, proof of concept, perhaps using a model organism |
TRL 4 | Computer modeling and laboratory testing |
TRL 5–7 | Testing in the real-world environment, exploring supply chains & scaling |
TRL 8 | Small-scale deployment |
TRL 9 | Full deployment |
“We want to be thinking about the public engagement dimension, the commercial or economic dimension, as we’re developing the technology. The technology readiness level scale provides a common language for doing so — a roadmap for responsible technology development,” Smanski says.
Published last summer in the Journal of Environmental Management, the framework has attracted interest from around the world. Here in Minnesota, the Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center has built on this classification system to create DeRISK levels that similarly track the maturity of new AIS control strategies. Smanski has also worked with leaders of the Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants and Pests Center to extend the concept to insect genetic biocontrol as well.
Smanski is pleased with the response and the opportunities it opens to bring clarity to the process of applying genetic technology to control pests, even as each project proceeds at a unique pace through the various steps.
“Responsible technology development requires considering nontechnical as well as technical aspects,” Smanski says. “Oftentimes, there are many alternative designs that could work from a technical perspective. Having conversations with regulators and the public early on gives them a voice in helping shape what the technology looks like. Having those conversations, you realize what the sticking points are for different groups, and they understand why some decisions are made and not others. This process ultimately smooths the way for successfully moving from concept to real-life impact that meets the needs of people and natural systems alike.” –Mary Hoff