GES Center Lectures, NC State University

About GES Center Lectures, NC State University

Recorded live from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this show explores how biotechnologies move from lab to life: microbiome engineering in buildings, CRISPR in agriculture and forestry, gene drives and integrated pest management, data governance and benefit-sharing, risk analysis and regulation, sci-art collaborations, and practical models of responsible innovation and public engagement. Episodes feature researchers, students, and community partners in candid conversations about decisions, trade-offs, and impacts. Learn more at go.ncsu.edu/ges and sign up for our newsletter at http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State

Publisher

Patti Mulligan

Category

education · science

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

15 Jan 2020

Latest episode

7 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

155 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   7 Oct 2026

   S14E5 - James Tuck - DNA-based data storage: How to store a library in a raindrop

   How to Store a Library in a Raindrop: DNA-based Data Storage James Tuck, PhD | Website (https://sites.google.com/a/ncsu.edu/james-tuck/) Professor and Interim Department Head in Electrical and Computer Engineering, NC State University Full details at https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/event/colloquium-2026-10-06/ | (https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/event/colloquium-2026-10-06/)Watch the video (https://ncsu.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=7427a2a6-71cf-47f9-8e71-b4dc01012340) Related links: Kyle J. Tomek, Kevin Volkel, Alexander Simpson, Austin G. Has, Elaine W. Indermaur, James M. Tuck, Albert J. Keung. Driving the Scalability of DNA-Based Information Storage Systems, ACS Synth. Biol.2019861241-1248, https://doi.org/10.1021 (https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.9b00100) Zoom Summary Overview This colloquium presentation, delivered by James Tuck, Professor and Interim Department Head in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at NC State University, explored the emerging field of DNA-based data storage. The talk addressed the fundamental question of whether an entire library's worth of data could be stored in a single raindrop, and provided a comprehensive overview of how DNA can serve as an ultra-dense, long-lasting storage medium for digital information. Key Concepts or Theories Binary-to-DNA Mapping: Digital data (zeros and ones) can be systematically converted into DNA base sequences (A, C, G, T), with each base representing two bits of information. Data Temperature Hierarchy: Data is classified as hot, warm, cold, or frozen based on access frequency, with DNA storage best suited for cold/frozen archival data. Six-Step DNA Storage Pipeline: The process of storing and retrieving data in DNA involves encoding, synthesis, storage, access, sequencing, and decoding. GC Balance and Homopolymer Avoidance: Effective DNA storage requires careful sequence design to maintain chemical stability and sequencing accuracy. Error Correction: Redundancy and mathematical coding techniques are used to ensure reliable data recovery despite synthesis and sequencing errors. Molecular Computing: Enzymatic and chemical reaction networks can potentially enable computation directly on stored DNA, reducing the need to transfer data back to digital systems. Important Questions Raised Can DNA storage be made cost-effective enough for widespread commercial adoption? How do existing data privacy regulations (e.g., the EU's right to erasure) apply when personal data is stored in a DNA archive that cannot be selectively unmixed? What knowledge should humanity choose to preserve in long-lasting DNA archives, and who controls that decision? Can living biological systems, such as yeast, be harnessed to store and maintain digital data? How do DNA strand length, synthesis cost, and sequencing error rates interact to define optimal storage parameters? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives DNA offers extraordinary storage density, with a theoretical peak of approximately 450 exabytes per gram, far exceeding current digital storage technologies. The global data sphere is estimated at around 200 zettabytes and is growing exponentially, creating urgent demand for new storage solutions. DNA storage is most practical for cold or frozen data — information that must be retained for decades or centuries but accessed infrequently. A six-step pipeline (encode, synthesize, store, access, sequence, decode) forms the foundation of any DNA-based storage system. Error correction strategies, borrowed from decades of computer engineering research, can ensure reliable data recovery even in the presence of synthesis and sequencing errors. Commercialization of DNA storage is underway, with companies such as BioMemory and Atlas Biosciences actively developing the technology. Significant challenges remain, including reducing synthesis costs, scaling archive sizes beyond the current ~200 megabyte laboratory record, and integrating DNA storage with existing IT infrastructure. DNA storage raises important ethical, legal, and policy questions around data ownership, deletion rights, and the long-term stewardship of human knowledge. Topic 1: The Case for DNA-Based Data Storage The exponential growth of global data — estimated at approximately 200 zettabytes today and projected to continue rising — is straining the capacity, cost, and energy efficiency of conventional storage technologies. Hard drives, magnetic tape, CDs, and flash memory all have finite lifespans ranging from a few years to a few decades, and none can match the density that DNA theoretically offers. James Tuck introduced DNA as a compelling alternative by drawing on a straightforward back-of-the-envelope calculation: a human body, with roughly 30 trillion cells each containing approximately 3 billion base pairs, could theoretically hold around 22.5 zettabytes of information — comparable to the entire global data sphere. At the molecular level, the peak theoretical storage density of DNA is approximately 450 exabytes per gram. Translating this to a practical example, a single raindrop (approximately 50 microliters) could potentially hold around one exabyte of data, equivalent to roughly 56 copies of the Hunt Library at NC State. Beyond density, DNA offers exceptional longevity. Researchers have successfully sequenced DNA from fossils millions of years old, and laboratory aging studies suggest that properly preserved synthetic DNA could remain readable for centuries or longer — far surpassing the 5–30 year lifespans of current storage media. Additionally, DNA is likely to remain permanently relevant to humanity as long as we are biological beings, unlike obsolete formats such as floppy disks or cassette tapes. Within the data storage hierarchy, DNA is best positioned as a medium for cold or frozen data: information that must never be deleted but is accessed very rarely, such as medical records, government archives, research datasets, financial records, and the broader corpus of human knowledge. Relevant Q\&A Question: What are the density advantages of DNA compared to conventional storage, and how does this translate to a practical example like a library? Answer: At a theoretical peak density of approximately 450 exabytes per gram, a single raindrop of DNA-dissolved water could store around one exabyte of data — enough to hold approximately 56 copies of the Hunt Library. This density advantage stems from the fact that each DNA base can encode two bits of information, and DNA molecules can be packed extremely tightly in solution. Topic 2: How DNA Data Storage Works — The Six-Step Pipeline James Tuck outlined a six-step process that forms the operational backbone of any DNA-based storage system. Step 1 — Encode: Any digital file, regardless of format, is broken into small chunks (typically 20–40 bytes each) that can fit on a single short DNA strand. Each chunk is assigned an index to enable later reassembly, and a file identifier is added so that multiple files can coexist in the same archive. The binary data is then converted into DNA base sequences. Not all sequences are suitable: GC balance (roughly equal proportions of G/C and A/T bases) must be maintained, and homopolymer runs (e.g., long stretches of the same base) must be avoided to ensure sequencing accuracy. As a result, practical systems achieve approximately 1 to 1.5 bits per base rather than the theoretical maximum of 2 bits per base. Error correction codes are also embedded to enable recovery from synthesis and sequencing errors. Step 2 — Synthesize: The designed sequences are manufactured into physical DNA, either by sending sequence files to commercial providers such as IDT or Twist Biosciences, or using in-house DNA synthesis equipment. Current bulk oligosynthesis costs are approximately one-tenth of a cent per base, making large-scale synthesis expensive but improving. Strand lengths of 100–300 bases represent a practical and cost-effective sweet spot. Step 3 — Store: The synthesized DNA strands are stored in test tubes or arrays of tubes. A single tube can potentially hold between a terabyte and a petabyte of data. Multiple tubes can be organized into racks to form a large-scale archive. Step 4 — Access: Because molecules cannot be unmixed once combined, selective file retrieval relies on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Unique primer sequences corresponding to each file's identifier are used to amplify only the target file's molecules, making them overwhelmingly abundant relative to the rest of the archive before sequencing. Step 5 — Sequence: The amplified DNA is read by a sequencing machine, producing base-called sequences and quality scores. Both high-throughput sequencing and nanopore sequencing can be used, though nanopore sequencing introduces higher error rates that must be accounted for in the encoding design. Step 6 — Decode: Software processes the raw sequencing reads to filter by file ID, cluster repeated reads, correct base errors, fill in missing data, and reassemble the chunks in their original order to reconstruct the original digital file. All decoding is performed in silico. Relevant Q\&A Question: Do the error correction sections account for mutations and errors that accumulate over long storage periods, and can data integrity be guaranteed to shareholders? Answer: Yes. Error correction is a well-established field dating back nearly a century. As long as the system's worst-case error rate is characterized, redundancy and mathematical coding techniques can be designed to reliably recover the original data. PCR naturally produces many copies, which aids error correction, and more sophisticated mathematical codes provide even stronger guarantees. Provided the system operates within its nominal parameters, a strong case can be made to shareholders that data will always be recoverable. Question: Is the decoding process performed in silico or in vitro? Answer: All decoding and translation steps are performed in silico. The sequencer produces base-called reads, and software handles all subsequent processing to reconstruct the original file. Question: What is the optimal strand length for DNA storage? Answer: Current studies have focused on strands of approximately 100 to 300 bases, which represent a balance between synthesis cost, chemical stability, and PCR amplification efficiency. More detailed quantitative models of how reliability changes with strand length are still needed before a definitive optimal length can be specified. Topic 3: Advanced Directions — Molecular Computing and Hybrid Systems James Tuck discussed a significant bottleneck in DNA storage systems: the memory bottleneck. Even if vast amounts of data are stored in DNA, retrieving and processing it requires sequencing, decoding, and loading the data into a conventional computer — a slow and computationally expensive process. If the desired data is not found, the entire cycle must be repeated. To address this, James Tuck proposed the concept of molecular computing: writing programs using enzymes or chemical reaction networks that can operate directly on the DNA pool in parallel, returning a single readable output without requiring full retrieval and digital processing. This approach could dramatically reduce latency and energy consumption for certain query types. Looking further ahead, James Tuck described a vision of hybrid computing systems that integrate a conventional digital side (processors, algorithms, AI) with a molecular side capable of reading, writing, and computing on DNA and RNA. Such systems could enable faster experimental cycles, novel forms of molecular sensing, and more seamless coupling between biological and digital information processing. James Tuck also described a collaborative study with Dr. Keung in NC State's Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, in which data was stored in living yeast cells. The yeast were engineered to display surface proteins indicating which file was stored inside, enabling cell-sorting technology to locate and retrieve specific files — demonstrating that biological systems can be harnessed to add functional features to DNA storage architectures. Relevant Q\&A Question: Can synthetic or artificial DNA bases beyond A, T, G, and C be used to increase storage density? Answer: Yes. The standard four-base mapping represents a lower bound on what is achievable. Synthetic bases, chemical modifications such as methylation, and other non-standard nucleotides can all encode additional information per position. The key requirement is that compatible synthesis and sequencing technologies exist to write and read those bases reliably. Nanopore sequencing, for example, could potentially be adapted to detect synthetic bases through their distinct electrical signals. Question: Could data be stored in living organisms, and what are the implications? Answer: It is technically feasible. A study conducted with Dr. Keung at NC State demonstrated data storage in yeast, with cells engineered to display proteins indicating their stored file, enabling retrieval via cell sorting. While living systems introduce biological complexity and variability, they also offer self-replication and maintenance capabilities that could be advantageous. The field of computing on information in living cells is active and growing, though James Tuck's own focus remains on purely synthetic systems for reliability and consistency. Topic 4: Applications, Commercialization, and Ethical Considerations James Tuck outlined the most practical near-term applications for DNA storage, all characterized by the need for long-term retention and infrequent access: Medical records: Legal requirements mandate long retention periods; DNA's density means archives need not rely on cloud infrastructure. Government archives: Governments accumulate vast, sensitive records over timescales exceeding individual human lifespans. Research data: Telescopes, genomic studies, and large instruments continuously generate data that researchers wish to retain indefinitely. Financial records and legal documents: Long-term retention requirements align well with DNA's durability. Archiving human knowledge: Books, languages, art, science, and history could be encoded in a form compact and durable enough to survive for millennia, and potentially transported beyond Earth. Two companies actively commercializing DNA storage were highlighted: BioMemory (Europe) and Atlas Biosciences (a Twist Biosciences spin-out), both working to reduce synthesis costs and build out the full DNA storage ecosystem. James Tuck also raised important ethical and policy challenges. Current EU regulations and California's Consumer Privacy Act grant citizens the right to have their personal data deleted. However, once personal data is mixed into a DNA archive, it cannot be selectively removed — raising unresolved questions about compliance, archive destruction, and data governance. Additionally, scaling DNA storage to commercial viability would require producing approximately 9 trillion DNA bases per day (equivalent to roughly 3,000 human genome equivalents), far exceeding current global synthesis capacity, necessitating major advances in parallel synthesis technologies. Relevant Q\&A Question: How would data deletion rights (e.g., EU right to erasure) be handled in a DNA archive where molecules cannot be unmixed? Answer: This remains an open and unresolved policy question. Once personal data is incorporated into a mixed DNA archive, selective removal is effectively impossible. Potential approaches include never storing personally identifiable information in DNA archives, or destroying the entire archive — neither of which is ideal. James Tuck acknowledged this as a significant challenge that the field has not yet solved. Actionable Next Steps Next week's GES Colloquium will be held online via Zoom. No in-person attendance is required, though participants may join from the usual room if preferred. The speaker will be Ed Perry, a professor in the Economics Department at Iowa State University, presenting research on the rural health effects of pesticide exposure and genetically engineered crop adoption on U.S. farmland. __ Recorded from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this podcast examines how biotechnologies take shape in the world: microbiome engineering in built environments, gene editing and gene drives, forest and agricultural genomics, data governance and equity, risk and regulation, sci-art, and public engagement in practice. Genetic Engineering and Society Center Colloquium Home (http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloquium) | Zoom Registration (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloq-zoom) | Watch Colloquium Videos (http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-mediasite) | LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/school/gescenter/) | Newsletter (http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T) GES Center at NC State University—Integrating scientific knowledge & diverse public values in shaping the futures of biotechnology. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State Find out more at https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co (https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co)

2. 

   22 Sept 2026

   S14E4 - Joseph Gakpo & Katie Sanders on what research tells us about communicating gene editing effectively

   Communicating Gene Editing Effectively: What Does the Research Tell Us? Katie Sanders, PhD, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, NC State University | Profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-sanders-ph-d-5876441a1/) ***** (https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-sanders-ph-d-5876441a1/)*Joseph Opoku Gakpo, PHD, Founder, RM Communications | Profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephopokugakpo/) Related links: Sanders, C. E. , Parrella, J. A., Lu, P., Landaverde, R., Gibson, K. E., & Gakpo, J. O. (2026). Perceptions of CRISPR and the role of risk information seeking and processing: An analysis of North Carolina consumers. Crisis and Risk Communication , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/29986907.2026.2721662 (https://doi.org/10.1080/29986907.2026.2721662) Gakpo, J. O ., Gulabrai, B., Sanders, C. E ., Parrella, J. A., Proudman, J., Berger, T., & Mitloehner, F. (2026). U.S. consumers’ processing of information about CRISPR-edited pork products. GM Crops & Food , 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2026.2719351 (https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2026.2719351) NC State Hub for Food Systems Communication and Engagement (https://units.cals.ncsu.edu/food-systems-comm-hub/) ---- Zoom Summary Overview This colloquium presentation featured Katie Sanders and Joseph Gakpo, who shared findings from two recently published research studies examining public perceptions and information-processing behaviors related to CRISPR gene-edited food products. The first study focused on North Carolina residents' information-seeking behaviors regarding CRISPR in food products generally, while the second examined a national sample's processing of information specifically about CRISPR-edited pork, following the high-profile approval of the PRRS-resistant pig. Both studies were grounded in the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model and employed structural equation modeling and regression analysis to understand how consumers engage with emerging biotechnology information. Key Concepts or Theories Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) Model: A theoretical framework examining how individuals seek, avoid, and process information about risks or innovations based on factors such as information sufficiency, channel beliefs, and self-efficacy. Information Sufficiency vs. Sufficiency Threshold: The gap between how much information a person currently has and how much they feel they need before making a comfortable decision about a technology. Systematic vs. Heuristic Processing: Systematic processing involves deep, critical engagement with information; heuristic processing relies on mental shortcuts to reach conclusions. Relevant Channel Beliefs: An individual's perception of how biased or credible a given information channel is. Perceived Information Gathering Capacity: A measure of self-efficacy — whether an individual believes they can effectively use a given channel to obtain information. Modular Approach to Communication: A strategy for disseminating information in layered formats, allowing audiences to self-select the depth of information they consume. Integrated Communication Strategy: Using multiple, complementary platforms and channels to deliver consistent and holistic messaging rather than relying on a single source. Audience Segmentation: Tailoring communication strategies not only by demographics but also by the values and worldviews of target audiences. Important Questions Raised How do consumers process information about CRISPR-edited food products, and what channels do they trust most? Why do people continue to use information sources they perceive as biased? How does prior knowledge of Extension services affect consumers' self-efficacy in seeking CRISPR-related information? What role do subjective norms play in shaping information-seeking behaviors around gene-edited products? How do worldviews and values — such as trust in science or aversion to tampering with nature — influence acceptance or rejection of CRISPR-edited foods? What are the implications of the RISP model's findings for science communicators and technology developers? Key Takeaways and Summary of Learning Objectives The RISP model was validated in both a North Carolina-specific and a national context, demonstrating its robustness across different populations and gene-editing topics. Consumers are generally open to learning more about CRISPR-edited pork and are not highly avoidant of related information, contrary to assumptions that the public disengages from complex scientific topics. People who perceive news media and social media as biased tend to seek more information, suggesting that perceived bias motivates rather than discourages information-seeking. Extension services represent a significant but underutilized opportunity for credible science communication, particularly once audiences are made aware of what Extension is and does. A modular, integrated, multi-platform communication approach is recommended to meet audiences where they are and allow them to self-select the depth of information they consume. Audience segmentation should go beyond demographics to include values and worldviews, which are increasingly important predictors of technology acceptance. Male respondents reported higher heuristic processing than female respondents; older respondents reported lower information avoidance than younger respondents (ages 25–35). Respondents with some college education reported higher information seeking and lower information avoidance than those with only a high school diploma or GED. Future research directions include examining institutional trust, worldview constructs, and producer-side attitudes toward gene-edited technologies. Topic 1: Study Overview and Theoretical Framework Both studies presented by Katie Sanders and Joseph Gakpo were grounded in the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model, a well-established framework in science communication research. The model examines how individuals respond to information about risks or innovations by considering factors such as how much information they currently have (information sufficiency), how much they feel they need (sufficiency threshold), their perceptions of channel credibility (relevant channel beliefs), and their confidence in using those channels (perceived information gathering capacity). These factors collectively shape four key behaviors: information seeking, information avoidance, systematic processing, and heuristic processing. The first study focused on North Carolina residents and their information-seeking behaviors related to CRISPR use in food products broadly. The second study expanded to a national sample and concentrated specifically on CRISPR-edited pork, a topic that gained public attention following the regulatory approval of the PRRS-resistant pig. Both studies used structural equation modeling and regression analysis to identify relationships among these variables. A key contextual backdrop for the research was the growing landscape of gene-editing applications in agriculture. As of 2024, the literature documented 212 papers on gene editing in animals, with CRISPR-Cas9 as the leading technology. Commonly targeted traits in livestock included yield, reproduction, and disease resistance. Despite this scientific momentum, CRISPR-edited products are not yet widely available on the market, making public opinion research particularly timely. Relevant Q\&A Question : Are you differentiating between the kind of information being sought — for example, misinformation versus credible information? Answer : The studies did not attempt to differentiate between misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation. The research measured respondents' perceptions of information credibility through separate measures (relevant channel beliefs), but the information-seeking behaviors themselves were assessed without categorizing the type of information sought. Question : Is there a paradox in that people continue to use sources they perceive as biased? Answer : Katie Sanders acknowledged this paradox, noting that people may be inflating their perceived capacity to identify bias, or they may be continuing to use biased sources regardless. Joseph Gakpo added that seeking from multiple sources — including those perceived as biased — may be a rational strategy to triangulate information and manage perceived bias across channels. Topic 2: Study One — North Carolina CRISPR Information-Seeking Behaviors The first study examined how North Carolina residents seek and process information about CRISPR-edited food products, with a particular focus on the role of different information channels: news media, social media, Extension services, and interpersonal sources. Key findings revealed that individuals who perceived news media as more biased were actually more likely to seek information about CRISPR-edited products. Similarly, those with more negative perceptions of social media were more likely to both seek and deeply process CRISPR-related information. Interestingly, respondents with higher self-efficacy on social media — those who felt confident in their ability to use social media to find information — were more likely to avoid CRISPR-related information, at least within the North Carolina sample. Extension services emerged as a particularly noteworthy finding. Lower beliefs in Extension as an information channel were associated with greater avoidance of CRISPR-related information. However, once respondents were informed about what Extension is and does, their self-efficacy in using Extension for CRISPR information increased significantly. This suggests that Extension's challenge is less about credibility and more about brand visibility and public awareness. The study also found that interpersonal conversations about CRISPR were not significantly impacting the ways in which people seek and process information in the deep, critical manner that communicators would hope for. Social media, while important, cannot stand alone as an information delivery system and must be part of a broader integrated communication strategy. Relevant Q\&A Question : Were the information-seeking and processing behaviors measured generally or specifically in the context of CRISPR? Answer : All measures were captured specifically within the context of CRISPR-related information. Respondents were asked how likely they were to seek, avoid, or process information specifically about CRISPR-related food products — not general information-seeking behaviors. Question : Can you comment more on what respondents knew about Extension before participating in the study? Answer : In the North Carolina study, an "I don't know what Extension is" response option was included, allowing the team to capture baseline knowledge. In the national study (Study Two), a description of Extension was provided to respondents. The explanation significantly increased respondents' self-efficacy around using Extension to find CRISPR-related information, highlighting both the opportunity and the brand awareness challenge that Extension faces broadly. Topic 3: Study Two — National Survey on CRISPR-Edited Pork The second study, presented by Joseph Gakpo, expanded the scope to a national sample and focused specifically on consumers' information-processing behaviors related to CRISPR-edited pork. The study used regression analysis and found results largely consistent with the RISP model's theoretical expectations. Descriptive statistics indicated that respondents had a high sufficiency threshold — meaning they felt they needed considerably more information before feeling comfortable making decisions about CRISPR-edited pork. Information seeking was relatively high, and information avoidance was low, suggesting that the public is open to engagement on this topic. Extension was rated as a moderately trusted source, falling between news media (higher perceived bias) and interpersonal sources (lower perceived bias but also lower perceived capacity for information gathering). Key regression findings included: higher information insufficiency (a larger gap between current and desired knowledge) predicted greater information seeking; perceiving news media and social media as biased also predicted greater information seeking; higher relevant channel beliefs for Extension predicted decreased information seeking; and higher perceived information gathering capacity for both social media and Extension positively predicted information seeking. Respondents with some college education reported higher information seeking and lower information avoidance than those with a high school diploma or GED. Older respondents reported lower information avoidance than younger respondents aged 25–35. Male respondents reported higher heuristic processing than female respondents. On the basis of these findings, the research team recommended a modular approach to communication — providing layered information that allows audiences to self-select the depth of engagement — as well as an integrated, multi-platform strategy where information from different channels complements rather than duplicates one another. Strengthening Extension's communication capacity and credibility was also highlighted as a priority recommendation. Relevant Q\&A Question : What kinds of subjective norms were measured in the survey, and did they significantly impact information seeking or processing? Answer : Subjective norms were measured using items such as "People around me expect me to have information about CRISPR" and "I feel that I should be knowledgeable about CRISPR." These captured the social expectation to be informed. The measure was found to be associated with information sufficiency threshold — the more respondents felt others expected them to be knowledgeable, the more information they felt they needed before making a decision about CRISPR. This finding is consistent with how the RISP model has performed across various contexts. Question : Is it most effective to have multiple strategies ready for each person starting at a similar baseline, or does that risk information overload? Answer : The recommendation is to use a modular approach — providing an accessible summary first, then supporting it with additional evidence, data visualizations, and citations for those who wish to engage more deeply. Audience segmentation data, including platform preference research such as the Pew Research Center's annual reports on media use, can help communicators determine what information to place on which platform and in what format, reducing the risk of overload while still meeting diverse audience needs. 1) Question : How does this research compare to studies on non-genome-edited topics, particularly those with perceived risk? Answer : The RISP model has held up consistently across studies on other technologies, including nano-technologies and human gene editing. The research team noted that having validated the model in both the North Carolina and national contexts, their subsequent work has shifted toward examining what underlies trust in institutions — academics, industry, and government regulators — and what worldviews drive acceptance or rejection of gene-edited technologies, which they see as a more complex and pressing area of inquiry. Topic 4: Communication Recommendations and Future Research Directions Drawing from both studies, Katie Sanders and Joseph Gakpo offered a set of actionable communication recommendations for researchers, technology developers, and science communicators working in the gene-editing space. First, technology developers should proactively engage the public on innovations such as CRISPR-edited pork, rather than assuming public disinterest or avoidance. The data clearly show that people want more information and are not highly avoidant. Second, Extension services should be strengthened in both communication capacity and public visibility, as they represent a credible but underutilized channel — particularly the family and consumer science side of Extension, which has direct connections to consumers concerned about food. Third, communicators should avoid exaggerated claims designed to attract attention, avoid relying on single sources of communication, and instead adopt integrated, multi-platform strategies. Fourth, the modular approach to information dissemination — layered content that allows audiences to self-select depth — is recommended over either oversimplifying or overwhelming audiences with information. Fifth, audience segmentation should go beyond demographics to incorporate values and worldviews, as these are increasingly important predictors of technology acceptance and institutional trust. Looking ahead, the research team noted that their subsequent work has moved beyond the RISP model toward examining institutional trust and the worldview constructs that underpin it. A study currently under review applies the theory of planned behavior to intention to consume CRISPR-edited pork, incorporating worldview constructs such as scientism and aversion to tampering with nature. Additional work on PRLR slick cattle examines trust in academics, industry, and government regulators. The team expressed interest in producer-side attitudes, the role of import/export considerations in producer decision-making, and the potential overlap between consumer and producer values regarding gene-edited technologies. Relevant Q\&A Question : Have you looked at the attitudinal behaviors of producer networks, rather than just consumers? Are producers thinking differently about gene-edited products? Answer : Katie Sanders acknowledged this as an important and underexplored area. She noted that the field has documented cases where producers are reluctant to adopt new technologies even when offered incentives, and suggested that examining producer sentiment — including values-based concerns such as "are we playing God?" — is a valuable direction. The team has explored some producer-level sentiment in subsequent research and expressed openness to further collaboration on this question. Question : How does the framing of CRISPR-edited products — for example, emphasizing animal welfare versus farmer profit — affect consumer attitudes? Answer : Data from the same survey indicated that consumers do not respond positively to yield or farmer profit as justifications for gene editing. However, when the edit is framed around animal welfare, disease resistance, or benefits to the animal itself, consumer ratings are significantly more favorable. This suggests that both framing strategies and product development priorities should be aligned with consumer values to improve acceptance. Supplemental Resources Huang and Zhang (2020) paper on the RISP model, referenced as the source for subjective norms measurement items used in the studies. Pew Research Center annual reports on media use, recommended as a resource for understanding which demographics use which platforms and how to tailor platform-specific communication strategies. The two published studies discussed in the presentation: one in Crisis and Risk Communication on North Carolina residents' CRISPR information-seeking behaviors, and one national study on consumers' processing of information related to CRISPR-edited pork. A forthcoming study (currently under review) applying the theory of planned behavior to intention to consume CRISPR-edited pork, incorporating worldview constructs. Subsequent research on PRLR slick cattle examining institutional trust and worldview constructs, with results emerging at the time of the presentation. About the speakers Dr. Catherine (Katie) Sanders is an Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist of Food Systems Communication in the Department of Agricultural and Human Sciences at NC State. Her research and extension efforts focus on increasing the practice of stakeholder engagement as a component of effective science communication for agri-food innovations and technologies. Specifically, her goal is to leverage research, praxis, and the university system to enhance the social sustainability of agri-food technologies and create an overall more sustainable food system. Dr. Joseph Opoku Gakpo is an agricultural and science communications scholar and practitioner. His research explores communication surrounding food system challenges and innovations, as well as participatory approaches to science. He holds a Ph.D. in agricultural education and human sciences (specializing in agricultural extension) from North Carolina State University, USA, M. A. in communication studies from the University of Ghana, and BSc. in Agricultural Biotechnology from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana. He is a 2016 Global Leadership Fellow of Cornell University’s Alliance for Science Program, 2018 International Federation of Agricultural Journalists’ Best Video Reporter, and 2020 AgBioFEWS (Agricultural Biotechnology in our Evolving Food, Energy, and Water Systems) Fellow of NC State University’s Genetic Engineering & Society Center. The GES Colloquium brings together speakers and audiences from across disciplines to explore the societal, ethical, environmental, and governance dimensions of emerging biotechnologies. Seminars are held Tuesdays from 12-1 p.m. ET in 3170 Plant Sciences Building Innovation Hub and via Zoom. GES 609 is taught by Dr. Zack Brown (mailto:zsbrown2@ncsu.edu). Recordings are regularly posted as videos (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-mediasite) and on the GES Lectures podcast (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-podcast). Please subscribe to the GES newsletter (http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T) and LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/school/gescenter/) for updates. __ Recorded from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this podcast examines how biotechnologies take shape in the world: microbiome engineering in built environments, gene editing and gene drives, forest and agricultural genomics, data governance and equity, risk and regulation, sci-art, and public engagement in practice. Genetic Engineering and Society Center Colloquium Home (http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloquium) | Zoom Registration (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloq-zoom) | Watch Colloquium Videos (http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-mediasite) | LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/school/gescenter/) | Newsletter (http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T) GES Center at NC State University—Integrating scientific knowledge & diverse public values in shaping the futures of biotechnology. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State Find out more at https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co (https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co)

3. 

   15 Sept 2026

   S14E3 - Ben Trump on what is happening with AI

   What is happening with AI, and what are our governments doing about it? Benjamin D. Trump Associate Professor, NC State University 3170 Plant Sciences Building Innovation Hub (https://cals.ncsu.edu/psi/psb/) + Zoom (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloq-zoom) | AI policy has become considerably less hypothetical in 2026. Europe began enforcing major provisions of the AI Act in August. In Washington, the White House is pressing for a national AI framework and limits on state regulation. States are writing their own rules, communities are confronting the demands of new AI infrastructure, and governments everywhere are trying to decide which problems require intervention before the technology changes again. This talk takes stock of what has happened, what governments seem worried about, and what they are doing about it. Trump will compare several emerging approaches to AI governance, with particular attention to the United States and European Union, and ask what each approach is designed to achieve. Consumer protection? Faster innovation? National advantage? Fewer catastrophic surprises? A press release demonstrating that somebody is on top of this? The convergence of AI and biotechnology adds further uncertainty and regulatory complexity, magnifying decades-old policy challenges as deep learning accelerates technological development. AI gives us an unusually visible case of governments trying to govern a powerful technology while its capabilities, applications, economics, and politics are still moving. For the GES community, that raises a familiar and useful question: which governance tools can keep up with emerging technology, and which ones mostly generate paperwork? About the speaker Dr. Benjamin D. Trump (https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/people/bdtrump/) is an Associate Professor at NC State University, joining the Genetic Engineering and Society Cluster in 2026 through the Chancellor’s Faculty Excellence Program. His work centers on organizational and societal resilience, decision-making for defense, the risk governance of emerging technologies, and critical infrastructure. For his contributions, President Biden awarded him a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) in January 2025, the highest federal honor for early-career researchers. Dr. Trump served as a U.S. Embassy Science Fellow in Turkmenistan, focusing on multilateral water security, and has also worked in Iraq, Jordan, Ukraine and Libya. He is President of the Society for Risk Analysis and has contributed to numerous organizations, including USAID, the World Bank, NATO Science for Peace and Security, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, OECD, and the International Risk Governance Council. Dr. Trump has published nine books and more than 100 peer-reviewed papers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he served as an emergency responder for two years, earning the U.S. Army Civilian Medal for Humanitarian Service and Army Superior Civilian Service Award for hands-on work that saved many lives in his area of responsibility. Dr. Trump holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Related links: The time window before biological AI spreads (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s44319-026-00886-2) , Trump et al., EMBO Reports , 2026 Biotechnology and AI: Technological Convergence and Information Hazards (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-032-05246-9) , Conference proceedings from the NATO Advanced Research Workshop. Editors: Cummings, Trump , et al., 2026 [ Access via NCSU Libraries > (https://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php?url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-05246-9) ] Governing the AI–biotech convergence (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s44319-025-00628-w) , Trump et al., EMBO Reports , 2026 __ Recorded from NC State’s GES Colloquium, this podcast examines how biotechnologies take shape in the world: microbiome engineering in built environments, gene editing and gene drives, forest and agricultural genomics, data governance and equity, risk and regulation, sci-art, and public engagement in practice. Genetic Engineering and Society Center Colloquium Home (http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloquium) | Zoom Registration (https://go.ncsu.edu/ges-colloq-zoom) | Watch Colloquium Videos (http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-mediasite) | LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/school/gescenter/) | Newsletter (http://eepurl.com/c-PD_T) GES Center at NC State University—Integrating scientific knowledge & diverse public values in shaping the futures of biotechnology. Produced by Patti Mulligan, Communications Director, GES Center, NC State Find out more at https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co (https://ges-center-lectures-ncsu.pinecast.co)

Who has been a guest on GES Center Lectures, NC State University

Names identified in recent episode analyses. Showing up to five guests.

• Royden Saah
• Jean Cadigan
• Rodolphe Barrangou
• Hamidou Maïga
• Susana Mateos

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

4 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 48 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

68

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

68

Contact GES Center Lectures, NC State University

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.

Questions about GES Center Lectures, NC State University