Safety Assurance for Environmental Introductions of Genetically-Engineered Organisms pp 13-33 | Cite as
“Old” Biotechnology to “New” Biotechnology: Continuum or Disjunction?
Abstract
Since the advent of recombinant DNA techniques and hybridoma technology gave rise more than a decade ago to “new” biotechnology, there has been much discussion of whether the products newly available should be regarded as refinements, or extensions, of previous ones, or as resulting from a technological disjunction. This conundrum is important because of its intimate connection to the question whether existing methods of risk analysis or risk assessment are applicable to or adequate for new processes and products. This is a pivotal issue, because the purpose of such risk assessment is to provide scientists, government regulators and others a measure of the safety attendant to the testing or use of a product, and to provide guidance as to the management of the risk that may be present.
Keywords
Risk Assessment Genetic Engineering Gypsy Moth Corn Plant Risk Assessment MethodPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Fiksel, J.R. and V.T. Covello, “An Overview and Evaluation of the Suitability and Applicability of Risk Assessment Methods for Environmental Applications of Biotechnology,” in, “The Suitability and Applicability of Risk Assessment Methods for Environmental Applications of Biotechnology,” V.T. Covello and J.R. Fiksel, eds., U.S. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1985.Google Scholar
- 2.The Suitability and Applicability of Risk Assessment Methods for Environmental Applications of Biotechnology, V.T. Covello and J.R. Fiksel, eds., U.S. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1985.Google Scholar
- 3.Federal Register 49, 50856 (1984).Google Scholar
- 4.Federal Register 51, 23302 (1986).Google Scholar
- 5.Miller, H.I., Pharmaceutical Engineering 6, 28 (1986).Google Scholar
- 6.Demain, A.L. and N.A. Solomon, Sci. Amer. 245, 66 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hardy, R.W.F. and D.J. Glass, Issues in Science and Technology 1, (1985).Google Scholar
- 8.Goodman, R.M., H. Hauptli, A. Crossway, and V.C. Knauf, Science 236, 48 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.McFadden, E.S., J. Am. Soc. Agron. 22, 1050 (1930).Google Scholar
- 10.Newell, C.A. and R. Hymowitz, Crop Sci. 22, 1062 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Rick, C.M., J.W. DeVerna, R.T. Chetelat, M.A. Stevens, Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 3580 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Miller, H.I. and F.E. Young, JAMA 257, 2334 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Health Impact of Biotechnology: Report of a WHO Working Group, Swiss Biotech. 2, 7 (1985).Google Scholar
- 14.Klingman, D.L. and J.R. Coulson, Plant Dis. 66, 1205 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Betz, F., M. Levin, and M. Rogul, Recomb. DNA Tech. Bull. 6, 135 (1983).Google Scholar
- 16.Kilbourne, E.D., Epidemiology of Viruses Genetically Altered by Man — Predictive Principles, in Banbury Report 22, Genetically Altered Viruses and the Environment, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1985.Google Scholar
- 17.Sharpies, F.E., Science 235, 1329 (1987).Google Scholar
- 18.Davis, B.D., Science 193, 442 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kingsbury, D.T., Bio/Technology 4, 1071 (1986).Google Scholar
- 20.Kennedy, D., The Wall Street Journal, p. 11, October 29, 1987.Google Scholar