You're a genebank manager, discussing the future of genebanks with a government administrator that funds genebanks and other agricultural research & development activities. The administrator has become an enthusiastic proponent of CRISPR (gene editing). They suggest that genebanks are no longer necessary to support crop improvement since new alleles can be made with CRISPR.
Which of these arguments are practical, scientifically-grounded argument for the continued value of genebanks in the era of gene editing?
Even if biotechnologists can edit any gene, they need discoveries from genebank accessions to know which genes should be edited
CRISPR alleles are not natural so they can never be as effective as alleles that originated in nature
Genebanks have been in continuous operation for over a hundred years, so funding must continue in the future
Diversity in genebanks will continue to be useful because it's been filtered and selected by natural and human selection for thousands of years