LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sarah Hartley; Frøydis Gillund; Lilian van Hove; Fern Wickson (2016)
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Journal: PLoS Biology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Biology and Life Sciences, Social Research, Cognition, Bioethics, Neuroscience, Sociology, Professions, Invertebrate Genomics, QH301-705.5, Agriculture, Population Groupings, Agricultural Biotechnology, Genetics, People and Places, Scientists, Social Sciences, Decision Making, Perspective, Genomics, Animal Genomics, Science Policy, Biology (General), 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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 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
    • 11. Caulfield T, Condit C, Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15(3-4): 209- 17. doi: 10.1159/000336533 PMID: 22488464
    • 12. Hartley S, Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals. J Eur Public Policy. 2016; 23(2): 276-295. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1049196
    • 13. Fisher E, O'Rourke M, Evans R, Kennedy EB, Gorman ME, Seager TP, Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2015; 2(1): 39-61. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671
    • 14. de Melo-Martín I, Meghani Z, Beyond risk. A more realistic risk-benefit analysis of agricultural biotechnologies. EMBO Rep. 2008; 9: 302-306. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.39 PMID: 18379579
    • 15. Stirling A, Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience. PLoS Biol. 2012; 10: e1001233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001233 PMID: 22235193
    • 16. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J, Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy. 2012; 39: 751-760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/ scs093
    • 17. Delgado A, Kjølberg KL, Wickson F, Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2011; 20(6): 826-845. doi: 10.1177/ 0963662510363054
    • 18. Wilsdon J, Willis R, See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. 2004. London: Demos. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf?1240939425
    • 19. Stilgoe J, Reflections on Rothamsted. 2012. https://jackstilgoe.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/reflectionson-rothamsted/
    • 20. Wynne B, Catacora-Vargas G, Farming and knowledge monocultures are misconceived. SciDevNet. 2013. http://www.scidev.net/global/agriculture/opinion/farming-and-knowledge-monocultures-aremisconceived.html.
    • 21. Wickson F, Carew AL, Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: Learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 2014; 1: 254-273. doi: 10.1080/23299460. 2014.963004
    • 22. Stirling A, Mayer S, A novel approach to the appraisal of technical risk: a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 2001; 19 (2): 529-555. doi: 10.1068/c8s
    • 23. Gillund F, Myhr AI, Perspectives on salmon feed: A deliberative assessment of several alternative feed resources. J Agr Environ Ethic. 2010; 23: 527-550. doi: 10.1007/s10806-010-9237-7
    • 24. Boor KJ, Commitment to responsible science guides CALS plans for moth Trials. 2015. Ithaca, NY: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. https://cals.cornell.edu/about/news/ commitment-responsible-science-guides-cals-plans-moth-trials
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article