I recently read an article titled "Should we upgrade photosynthesis and grow supercrops?" by Michael Le Page for the New Scientist. This article discussed how a group of scientists working together from around the world have discovered a way to speed up the process of photosynthesis by replacing an enzyme in a tobacco plant with a much more efficient one from a cyanobacterium. This enzyme is said to speed up the rate of crop growth by 25% and increase the amount of moisture the crop can retain, therefore providing us -- and animals -- with a much larger food supply if the upgrade was widely applied. While this idea is very appealing to those in the food, biofuel, and plant industries, there are some negatives that could come from this change in photosynthesis. The number of genetically modified crops has been greatly increasing as technology has improved, and in many cases, we don't know how these modifications will affect humans in the future. Also, these "supercrops" could take over ecosystems and cause mass extinctions in the distant future. Overall, this upgrade in p hotosynthesis could have a predominately positive effect on the animals and our food supplies, along with a few negatives that could require a change in the agricultural practices that are commonly used in our society.

The article mentioned in this discussion is this one from the New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 … ?full=true

I find that this is a very controversial topic that can be viewed both positively and negatively. It is a great way to save endangered plants and increase the food outcome for the plant industry which could increase an areas economy. With these positive effects, I think that the negative effects outweigh what positives come out of it. According to the conclusions drawn by the Cornell and Rothamsted collaboration, the negative effects of destroying ecosystems are too great to risk this. I believe that with more research and time, this could be become a profitable idea.