Dr. Peggy G. Lemaux, a principal investigator at the Innovative Genomics Institute and faculty member in the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at UC Berkeley, has lived through the history of genetic engineering in agriculture, and her work continues to advance both its science and public perception. After graduating with her PhD, Lemaux did medical research in the lab of Dr. Stanley Cohen, considered one of the fathers of genetic engineering. She was then drawn to the collaborative environment of plant biology, which was a stark contrast to what she perceived as the secretive and fiercely competitive nature of medical research. During her second postdoc, she worked on algae and cloned one of the first light-harvesting genes before joining a family-owned corn seed company, DeKalb Plant Genetics, where she became one of the first people to genetically engineer corn. 

At the time, there was doubt that plant genes could even be engineered. This was completely unforeseen territory, and Lemaux’s team was not the only one trying to break biological ground. Time was ticking, and after their experiment regenerated plantlets, her team had already written a draft paper, but they couldn’t publish anything before genetic analysis of the next generation confirmed the plant had been engineered. When the new seedlings generated enough tissue, the sample was rushed for DNA analysis, where they identified the introduced gene in the new generation. The paper, now including the successful results, was submitted for publication, beating the competition to publication by about six months.

“From there, I applied to a lot of jobs… and didn’t get them.”

“From there, I applied to a lot of jobs… and didn’t get them.”

After creating the fertile transgenic maize, she finally was given the opportunity to start her own lab at UC Berkeley where she spent many years developing GMO (genetically modified organism) varieties. Her lab proceeded to develop hypoallergenic wheat with fellow researcher, Dr. Bob Buchanan. It was engineered to produce more thioredoxin, a protein in wheat seeds that could theoretically make allergenic proteins easier to digest. After a patent was filed on key aspects of the invention, the transgenic wheat was confirmed to have a reduced allergenic effect, using a canine model system. However, despite many attempts to pitch it to companies and fighting tooth and nail to protect her patent in Europe (which UC eventually succeeded in defending), it never entered the commercial marketplace. 

Lemaux never gave up, even as her other projects faced a similar fate. Her Berkeley lab developed nutrient-fortified sorghum, wheat that wouldn’t sprout before harvest, and fast-germinating barley “that would have saved the malting and brewing industry probably hundreds of millions of dollars.” Though these innovations were scientifically sound and had immense global potential, high upfront costs and general opposition toward GMOs inhibited their success. At this point, many researchers would have given up, discouraged by the wasted potential due to the stigma given to her field of science. But Lemaux never stopped, and she isn’t stopping now, either.

“Would I change anything? I don’t think so.” 

“Would I change anything? I don’t think so.” 

Obviously, she would have preferred her inventions go into the world and reach farmers and consumers, but commercial success doesn’t change the feats of science her work achieved. “Should I really do this experiment because […] five years from now people aren’t gonna like it?’ […] We don’t do science for that reason; we do science because there are interesting questions and we want to see if we can get answers.”

It is thanks to Lemaux’s tenacity and scientific curiosity that she continues to push the needle on scientific discoveries to this day. Her dedication to the scientific chase, along with her previous work, is truly admirable… so it’s astonishing how much she has been able to do when research is only half her job.

Back when she was an undergraduate student, Lemaux realized on the trips home that she had to figure out how to explain science to her family in a way they would understand. As her parents had no scientific background, she had to learn to break complex concepts down in a way everyone could understand. This experience primed her for joining the Pfizer Advisors team at DeKalb/Pfizer Genetics, which worked to explain the importance of genetics in local schools by integrating it into the curriculum. At this point, science communication had ingrained itself into her life, so when she saw the opportunity at Berkeley to pair her research with outreach, she knew it was the right job for her. 

Unlike every other researcher in the Plant and Microbial Biology Department at UC Berkeley, Peggy Lemaux is a Cooperative Extension Specialist, meaning 50% of her job is running research in her lab, and the other 50% is bridging the gap between research and the general public. This includes public speeches, coordinating graduate student efforts to improve genetics education for high school students, taking interviews (even for a student’s blog), communicating about novel problems and solutions in agriculture, and making connections between academics and university representatives in each California county.

Lemaux’s penchant and passion for conveying scientific concepts to everyday people is not widespread in academia. In addition to diverting time and energy from lab projects, being outspoken about GMOs, especially in the 90s when opposition was at its peak, was not for the faint of heart. 

“I can remember having things thrown at me, I can remember being pushed up against the wall and [people] saying, ‘You’re just a Monsanto shill, […] whatever Monsanto tells you to say, that’s what you say.’” 

“And my response when people say that is, ‘I guess you don’t know much about UC Berkeley.’”

“And my response when people say that is, ‘I guess you don’t know much about UC Berkeley.’”

“In all of my years of doing this […] no dean, chancellor, no department chair, has ever said to me, ‘You can’t say that.’”

“Monsanto shill”

Distaste for GMOs was amplified by the involvement of Monsanto, a major agricultural company releasing RoundUp Ready crops in the 90s. Concerns over the health impacts of RoundUp, in addition to Monsanto’s reputation as a producer of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, bred distrust toward GMOs in the eyes of many consumers.

Distaste for GMOs was amplified by the involvement of Monsanto, a major agricultural company releasing RoundUp Ready crops in the 90s. Concerns over the health impacts of RoundUp, in addition to Monsanto’s reputation as a producer of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, bred distrust toward GMOs in the eyes of many consumers.

Of course, Lemaux wasn’t the only one who received backlash for outreach. “The dean came to talk to my department […]” she recounted. “And he was talking about GMOs.” If the challenges she faced with the applications of her research weren’t enough, witnessing people’s hatred toward GMOs firsthand showed her how strongly people felt about them. “The dean was in the front and I was sitting on the side. Someone had brought a whipped cream pie and all of a sudden  the pie came flying through the air and hit the dean. I just hope we don’t have to go through that for speaking out about genome editing.”

What Lemaux is referring to here is a new way to modify crops, creating a product that is not currently termed a GMO. While it’s reasonable to think all genetically modified life would be considered GMO, the label only refers to organisms given genes introduced in the laboratory, while using recombinant DNA techniques. These modified plants are the target of anti-GMO sentiment, but new advancements in gene editing technology allow for the alteration of the genome in a very directed, precise way. With the introduction of the novel tool, CRISPR/Cas9, exact changes can be made to the genome, such as specific modification of an undesirable gene.

Current commercialized GMOs do not pose an inherent threat to human health, but their inclusion of recombinant DNA makes consumers wary. As a result, biologists hope that genome-edited crops without random incorporation of DNA will not suffer the same fate as GMOs in the public eye. Genome editing can have the same effect as inducing genetic changes with mutagens, which are not strictly regulated by the federal government like GMOs, and in the case of an edited plant, genome sequencing can detect if unintentional changes were made. Mutagenesis is random and often causes additional unintended mutations elsewhere in the genome, whereas CRISPR/Cas9 is extremely precise. Genome editing can produce the same results as mutagenesis in a fraction of the time and without the unintended mutations. It is the potential of genome editing that is paving the way for Lemaux’s next project, a type of sorghum that can address climate change by sequestering more carbon.

Sorghum, a grain considered the fifth most important crop worldwide and the second most important U.S. bioenergy crop, is grown in the US  and in impoverished regions due to its incredible drought, heat, and flood tolerance. These qualities made it a subject of many studies in the Lemaux lab, including research on a gene for increasing photosynthetic efficiency. With funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Lemaux lab has developed engineered  sorghum lines that seem to sequester carbon dioxide faster, according to greenhouse data. However, greenhouse tests don’t necessarily reflect how the crop would perform on the farm, which is why they hope to do field tests next summer. 

The sorghum developed from this project is GMO, which could subject it to the same opposition as Lemaux’s other work. However, if the field trials yield positive results, another lab at the Innovative Genomics Institute, the Savage lab, will work to find a way to use genome editing to accomplish the same outcome observed with the GMO variety. The approach will be to modify the natural promoters of the gene to reach levels of expression of the gene similar to the GMO. If successful, the edited sorghum would make the same levels of the protein responsible for increased photosynthetic activity found in the GMO.

Just as decades ago, when the first GMOs entered the market and public opinion was still forming, Lemaux and her research stand at the precipice of history. As much as agriculture relies on scientific innovation, its success depends on how people apply it and how it is accepted by the public. There is no way of knowing the future, so in the meantime, Lemaux is proud to keep doing what she’s been doing: pioneering novel research and sharing the science with those who will listen in these unprecedented times.

As someone who wants to pursue genetic engineering so my research makes positive change on critical issues like food security and environment, I am incredibly grateful to have had this conversation early in my career. The work Dr. Lemaux has done is inspiring, and her outlook on research is imperative. Research is driven by curiosity can offer valuable applications in many ways, but even if they aren’t applied, our scientific understanding is progressed. Lemaux’s determinism and undying tenacity is truly admirable, and I’m lucky to be able to learn from it.

Dr. Lemaux was truly on the breaking edge of biological engineering with her work on corn decades ago, but the same can be said about right now. Over and over again, I am reminded about how exciting this era of scientific research, especially in biology, really is. I can’t wait to discover more. Stay tuned to learn with me!

Most of this information was gathered during my interview with Dr. Lemaux, but supplemental materials are listed below:

Hypoallergenic wheat: https://www.emilyharari.com/post/the-woman-behind-the-gmo

General background: https://aspb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Legacy-Society-Founding-Members-Peggy-Lemaux.pdf