» Articles » PMID: 27144921

Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology

Overview
Journal PLoS Biol
Specialty Biology
Date 2016 May 5
PMID 27144921
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

New genomic techniques, old divides: Stakeholder attitudes towards new biotechnology regulation in the EU and UK.

Menary J, Fuller S PLoS One. 2024; 19(3):e0287276.

PMID: 38446826 PMC: 10917245. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287276.


Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture.

Kuzma J, Grieger K, Cimadori I, Cummings C, Loschin N, Wei W Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1256388.

PMID: 37840660 PMC: 10569304. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1256388.


Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics' views on agricultural gene editing.

Nawaz S, Satterfield T PLoS One. 2022; 17(3):e0265635.

PMID: 35313327 PMC: 8936474. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265635.


Between a rock and a hard place: Farmers' perspectives on gene editing in livestock agriculture in Bavaria.

Muller R, Clare A, Feiler J, Marco N EMBO Rep. 2021; 22(7):e53205.

PMID: 34137467 PMC: 8406399. DOI: 10.15252/embr.202153205.


New Hope for a "Cursed" Crop? Understanding Stakeholder Attitudes to Plant Molecular Farming With Modified Tobacco in Europe.

Menary J, Amato M, Sanchez A, Hobbs M, Pacho A, Fuller S Front Plant Sci. 2020; 11:791.

PMID: 32595677 PMC: 7304234. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00791.


References
1.
Jensen K, Gamborg C, Madsen K, Jorgensen R, Von Krauss M, Folker A . Making the EU "risk window" transparent: the normative foundations of the environmental risk assessment of GMOs. Environ Biosafety Res. 2004; 2(3):161-71. DOI: 10.1051/ebr:2003011. View

2.
Sarewitz D . CRISPR: Science can't solve it. Nature. 2015; 522(7557):413-4. DOI: 10.1038/522413a. View

3.
Stirling A . Opening up the politics of knowledge and power in bioscience. PLoS Biol. 2012; 10(1):e1001233. PMC: 3250508. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001233. View

4.
de Melo-Martin I, Meghani Z . Beyond risk. A more realistic risk-benefit analysis of agricultural biotechnologies. EMBO Rep. 2008; 9(4):302-6. PMC: 2288773. DOI: 10.1038/embor.2008.39. View

5.
Esvelt K, Smidler A, Catteruccia F, Church G . Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. Elife. 2014; 3. PMC: 4117217. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.03401. View