By Milliam Murigi
As climate change, population growth, and shrinking arable land intensify pressure on Africa’s food systems, genome editing is emerging as a critical technology that could reshape the continent’s agricultural future.
Scientists across Africa agree on its potential but differ on how prepared the continent truly is to adopt and benefit from it.
Genome editing is an emerging biotechnology that allows scientists to make precise changes within a plant’s or animal’s own DNA, much like correcting a typing error in a long sentence.
Beyond crops and livestock, the same technology can also be applied to microorganisms, fisheries, forestry, and even medical research.
“The ongoing genome editing research in Kenya shows that African researchers can meaningfully shape genome editing agendas when national priorities are clearly defined,” says James Karanja, a researcher at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO).
Current genome editing projects in Kenya focus on maize, rice, and sorghum, targeting traits such as resistance to maize lethal necrosis, striga infestation, bacterial blight, drought tolerance, and improved nutritional quality.
According to Karanja, genome editing offers a major advantage over conventional breeding by dramatically reducing the time needed to develop improved crop varieties.
“This technology shortens breeding timelines from seven years to about three allowing faster responses to emerging threats. For a country where food security remains tightly linked to agricultural productivity, this speed could be transformative,” he said.
However, the picture is not uniformly positive across the continent. Dr. Francis Tanam Djankpa, a molecular specialist at Ghana’s University of Cape Coast (UCC), argues that in many African countries, genome editing research agendas remain largely donor-driven.
While external funding has enabled laboratories and training, he cautions that donors often determine what crops and traits are prioritized, sometimes side-lining locally identified needs.
He says this dependence highlights the urgent need for stronger domestic investment in agricultural biotechnology.
“Donor funding has made genome editing research possible, but it also shapes what gets researched. Too often, priorities are externally defined, leaving African researchers with little influence over how funds are used,” adds Dr. Djankpa.
Despite these challenges, Dr. Djankpa believes genome editing could most quickly address drought stress a growing threat across Africa. Unpredictable rainfall patterns linked to climate change have led to frequent crop failures, leaving farmers vulnerable and reducing yields. Drought-resistant genome-edited crops, he says, could help stabilize food production and protect livelihoods, particularly for smallholder farmers.
Both scientists agree that delaying the adoption of this technology carries serious risks. Karanja warns that postponement could widen the technological gap between Africa and other regions already deploying advanced biotechnology.
On his side, Dr. Djankpa says that delays could worsen hunger and food shortages at a time when food demand is rising sharply.
“Delaying the adoption of genome editing will not only exacerbate food insecurity across Africa but also leave the continent behind in developing and delivering next-generation improved crop varieties. With a rapidly growing population and shrinking arable land, postponement risks widening the gap between Africa and other regions in harnessing modern biotechnology to address urgent agricultural challenges,” says Karanja.
On regulation, the two researchers strike a more optimistic tone. Karanja points to Kenya’s well-established biosafety framework, supported by clearly mandated institutions such as the National Biosafety Authority, which oversee genome editing applications and ensure that scientific, ethical, and legal considerations are addressed.
Dr. Djankpa agrees that existing biosafety and regulatory frameworks are scientifically adequate, provided they are properly implemented and supported by political will.
But do we have countries that have commercialized genome-edited crops? Dr. Djankpa points to the United States as an example of successful commercialization, noting that genome-edited crops can be cultivated year-round and often achieve higher yields per acre compared to conventional varieties.
He adds that Africa can draw important lessons from this experience by putting in place enabling policies that promote innovation, support farmer adoption, and ensure responsible commercialization.
