Essential features of responsible governance of agricultural biotechnology

Article English OPEN
Hartley, Sarah ; Gillund, Frøydis ; van Hove, Lilian ; Wickson, Fern (2016)
  • Publisher: Public Library of Science
  • Journal: PLoS Biology, volume 14, issue 5 (issn: 1544-9173, eissn: 1545-7885)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002453, pmc: PMC4856357
  • Subject: Biology and Life Sciences | Social Research | Cognition | Bioethics | Neuroscience | Sociology | Professions | Invertebrate Genomics | Agriculture | Population Groupings | Agricultural Biotechnology | Genetics | People and Places | Scientists | Social Sciences | Decision Making | Perspective | Genomics | Animal Genomics | Science Policy | Cognitive Science

Agricultural biotechnology continues to generate considerable controversy. We argue that to address this controversy, serious changes to governance are needed. The new wave of genomic tools and products (e.g., CRISPR, gene drives, RNAi, synthetic biology, and genetically modified [GM] insects and fish), provide a particularly useful opportunity to reflect on and revise agricultural biotechnology governance. In response, we present five essential features to advance more socially responsible forms of governance. In presenting these, we hope to stimulate further debate and action towards improved forms of governance, particularly as these new genomic tools and products continue to emerge.
  • References (24)
    24 references, page 1 of 3

    1. Esvelt KM, Smidler AL, Catteruccia F, Church GM, Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife. 2014; 3: e03401. doi: 10.7554/eLife.03401

    2. Sarewitz D, Science can't solve it. Nature. 2015; 522: 412-413. doi: 10.1038/522413a

    3. Kuzma J, Kokotovich A, Renegotiating GM crop regulation: Targeted gene-modification technology raises new issues for the oversight of genetically modified crops. EMBO Rep. 2011; 12: 883-888. doi: 10.1038/embor.2011.160 PMID: 21836639

    4. National Academy of Sciences, International summit on human gene editing. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. 2015. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx? RecordID=12032015a

    5. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Genetically modified insects. 1st Report of Session 2015-16. 2015. London: House of Lords. HL Paper 68.

    6. National Academy of Sciences, Project information. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. 2015. https://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49717.

    7. Wynne B, Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genomics. 2006; 9: 211-220. doi: 10.1159/000092659

    8. Jensen KK, Gamborg C, Madsen KH, Jørgensen RB, Krayer von Krauss M, Folker AP, et al, Making the EU “Risk Window” transparent: The normative foundations of the environmental risk assessment of GMOs. Environ Biosafety Res. 2003; 2: 161-171. doi: 10.1051/ebr:2003011 PMID: 15612414

    9. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, choice and the public good. 2012. London: Nufield Council on Bioethics.

    10. Stirling A, Keep it complex. Nature. 2010; 468: 1029-1031. doi: 10.1038/4681029a PMID: 21179144

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark