This post is available for free to all SFTW members.
Welcome to another edition of SFTW Convo. This week’s conversation features Emma Kovak, Senior Food and Agriculture Analyst at The Breakthrough Institute. The Breakthrough Institute is a paradigm-shifting think tank committed to modernizing environmentalism for the 21st century.
Emma works on food and agriculture policy, with a special focus on biotechnology. Emma has researched and written extensively about food and agriculture policy, and the role of innovation and technology.
Emma has a PhD in Plant Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. Emma is a fellow techno-optimist and believes in the power of technology to drive meaningful change in our food and agriculture systems. She takes a very data driven approach in her research and writings, which resonated with me quite a bit.
I have been spending more time understanding the intersection of policy and innovation. Emma is one of the right people to talk with about this topic, especially when it comes to biotech. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did having it.
Summary of the SFTW Convo
Emma discusses her transition from a PhD in plant biology to working at a policy think tank, highlighting the intersection of environmentalism and biotechnology. She addresses the historical resistance of environmental organizations to biotechnology, the complexities of policy implementation in agriculture, and the role of technology in shaping the future of food systems.
Emma emphasizes the importance of effective policy in supporting agricultural advancements, the disparities in agricultural yields across regions, and the potential of genetically engineered crops in climate policy. Emma and I discuss the impact of insect-resistant crops, the balance between technology and safety in agriculture, and the implications of the EU's anti-GE stance on human health.
She also addresses the MAHA movement's approach to nutrition policy and the role of AI in agriculture. Emma emphasizes the importance of regulatory changes in ag biotech to foster innovation while ensuring safety and environmental sustainability.
Technology and environmentalism
Rhishi: Thanks Emma for joining. How did you go from a plant biology PhD to a policy think tank?
Emma: In grad school, I studied plant biology. I focused on circadian rhythms, which help plants adapt to their environments. That work was firmly on the basic research side, but it ultimately connected to climate change, and that’s what first got me thinking about environmental issues.
During graduate school, I also joined a group that did outreach and education around biotechnology and agriculture, and I found that work exciting, fun, and motivating.
When I started thinking about jobs after grad school, I knew I wanted to move closer to policy and the implementation of technology. I still believe basic research is essential, but I wanted to work in a hybrid space, not surrounded only by researchers in a lab all the time.
That’s what made the Breakthrough Institute such a strong match. I wanted to stay connected to biotechnology, but also work on environmental solutions. And as we know, most environmental organizations haven’t historically embraced biotechnology. That overlap is growing, but it’s still limited.
So joining an environmental NGO that supports technology, not just biotech but innovation more broadly, felt like a great fit. I’m really glad I found that.
Rhishi: You mentioned environmental organizations haven’t really aligned with technology or biotech in particular. What do you think causes that disconnect? And you mentioned that's starting to change, so what's driving that shift?
Emma: I do think that many organizations focused on the environment, biodiversity, or conservation tend to hold a very specific vision of what nature should look like, and that vision often reflects what nature used to look like.
That perspective is intrinsically resistant to change, and it leans away from technology.
I do see more environmental organizations starting to shift. They’re becoming a bit more pro-technology or pro-biotech, mostly because they’re facing the scale of the challenges, climate change, agricultural expansion, biodiversity loss, habitat destruction.
We’re starting to see a broader recognition that we’ll need many different kinds of solutions to address these issues. As these problems persist, grow, and accelerate, I think more people in the environmental space are becoming more open-minded, maybe out of necessity, but also out of possibility.
Rhishi: Earlier you mentioned that you were a researcher during your PhD in plant biology, and now you're working on policy approaches related to technology. What’s surprised you the most in that transition from academia and pure research to what you’re doing now?
Emma: I’ve come to realize that research findings and academic papers play a smaller role in policy decision-making than most idealistic graduate students would hope.