Advertisement

Trails and Trials in Biotechnology Policy

  • Jennifer KuzmaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)

Abstract

In this chapter, I reflect on my transition from natural science work in biochemistry and biotechnology to becoming a professor in the social and policy sciences. I discuss how I’ve viewed biotechnology policy from standpoints of ethics and philosophy, biochemistry and molecular biology, risk analysis, science and technology policy, and the social sciences. The “trails” of each period of this career have informed my recent work on the policy “trials” or controversies surrounding governance of emerging technologies, including agricultural biotechnology. At this critical juncture of enormous advances in biotechnology (e.g. synthetic biology, gene editing, and gene drives), I end the chapter with a plea for each of us to recognize our own biases and respect the viewpoints of others. I hope to see the current biotechnology revolution shaped by many different viewpoints, so it is done in the best interest of all of society. Only then will we be able to move past the inflamed and divisive rhetoric and enable safe, responsible, socially-desirable and appropriate use of genetic engineering.

Keywords

Natural Rubber Synthetic Biology Technology Policy Ground Beef Conventional Crop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bardocz S, Clark A, Ewen S, Hansen M et al (2012) Seralini and science: an open letter.’ Independent Science News [Online], 2 October. http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-studyroundup/
  2. Bøhn T, Cuhra M, Traavik T, Sanden M, Fagan J, Primicerio R (2014) Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chem 153:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA, Edwards JW et al (2013) A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Org Syst 8(1):38–54Google Scholar
  4. Domingo JL (2016) Safety assessment of GM plants: an updated review of the scientific literature. Food Chem Toxicol 95:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Domingo JL, Bordonaba JG (2011) A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int 37(4):734–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS (2009) Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 49(2):164–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ebel E, Schlosser W, Kause J, Orloski K, Roberts T, Narrod C, Powell M et al (2004) Draft risk assessment of the public health impact of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in ground beef. J Food Prot 67(9):1991–1999Google Scholar
  8. EPA (1994, 2001) Environmental Protection Agency. Regulations under the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act for plant-incorporated protectants. Fed Reg 66:37855–37869Google Scholar
  9. FAO (2016) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Agriculture and Food Security. http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm. Accessed 14 July 2016
  10. Glöckner G, Séralini GE (2016) Pathology reports on the first cows fed with Bt176 maize (1997–2002). Sch J Agric Sci 6:1–8Google Scholar
  11. Gu J, Bakke AM, Valen EC, Lein I, Krogdahl Å (2014) Bt-maize (MON810) and non-GM soybean meal in diets for Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) juveniles-impact on survival, growth performance, development, digestive function, and transcriptional expression of intestinal immune and stress responses. PLoS ONE 9(6):e99932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hilbeck A, Binimelis R, Defarge N, Steinbrecher R, Székács A, Wickson F, Novotny E et al (2015) No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environ Sci Eur 27(1):1Google Scholar
  13. Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of risk theory. Springer, New York, pp 725–759Google Scholar
  14. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz C (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empirical Legal Stud 4(3):465–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuzma J (2013) Properly paced? Examining the past and present governance of GMOs in the United States. In: Marchant GE, Abbott KW, Allenby B (eds), Innovative governance models for emerging technologies, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 176–197Google Scholar
  16. Kuzma J (2016a) Reboot the debate on genetic engineering. Nature 531:165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuzma J (2016b) Risk, Environmental governance, and emerging biotechnology. In: Durant R, Fiorino DJ, O’Leary R (eds) Environmental governance reconsidered: challenges, choices, and opportunities, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuzma J, Besley JC (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2(2):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuzma J, Rawls L (2016) Engineering the wild: gene drives and intergenerational equity. Jurimetrics J Law Sci Technol 56(3):279–296Google Scholar
  20. Kuzma J, Najmaie P, Larson J (2009) Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: a case study of genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37(4):546–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leiss W, Powell D (1997) Mad cows and mothers milk. McGill–Queen’s Press, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  22. Loening UE (2015) A challenge to scientific integrity: a critique of the critics of the GMO rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. (2012). Environ Sci Eur 27(1):1Google Scholar
  23. Losey J, Raynor L, Carter M (1999) Transgenic pollen harm monarch larvae. Nature 399:214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lurquin PF (2016) Production of a toxic metabolite in 2, 4-D-resistant GM crop plants. 3 Biotech 6(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer H, Hilbeck A (2013) Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize—a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards. Environ Sci Europe 25:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NAS (1987) National Academy of Science. introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment: key issues. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. NASEM (2016) National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. NRC (2000) National Research Council, genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986) Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Fed Reg 51(123):23302–23350Google Scholar
  30. USDA (1993) US Department of Agriculture, genetically engineered organisms and products: notification procedures for the introduction of certain regulated articles and petition for nonregulated status. Fed Reg 58(60):17044–17059Google Scholar
  31. USDA (1997) Introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering which are plant pests or which there is reason to believe are plant pests, 7 C.F.R. § 340Google Scholar
  32. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M (2009) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem 48(4):449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public and International Affairs, Genetic Engineering and Society CenterNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations