"
Team:Harvard/human practices/debate
From 2010.igem.org
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
<h3>The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA - 1975</h2> | <h3>The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA - 1975</h2> | ||
| + | <p> | ||
In February 1975, an association of scientists met in Asilomar, California to discuss the implications and regulation of recombinant DNA technology. Out of this meeting came a series of self-regulatory rules which are an important pillar in biology lab safety to this day, perhaps most famously the designation of biology labs according to the riskiness of the experiments conducted there (BL1-BL4). This conference was significant not only in the actual rules it set for biology researchers, but also for the precedent of self-regulation by researchers. This early step taken by scientists preemptied governmental intervention more than 30 years ago, and because the rules were set by individuals highly knowledgable in the field, they may have been more effective and appropriate than those set by individual's in the government without such knowledge. On the other hand, critics of scientific self-regulation would argue that scientists have incentive to not regulate themselves enough. Good or bad, this form of internal regulation has dominated the field of genetic modification since the 1970s. | In February 1975, an association of scientists met in Asilomar, California to discuss the implications and regulation of recombinant DNA technology. Out of this meeting came a series of self-regulatory rules which are an important pillar in biology lab safety to this day, perhaps most famously the designation of biology labs according to the riskiness of the experiments conducted there (BL1-BL4). This conference was significant not only in the actual rules it set for biology researchers, but also for the precedent of self-regulation by researchers. This early step taken by scientists preemptied governmental intervention more than 30 years ago, and because the rules were set by individuals highly knowledgable in the field, they may have been more effective and appropriate than those set by individual's in the government without such knowledge. On the other hand, critics of scientific self-regulation would argue that scientists have incentive to not regulate themselves enough. Good or bad, this form of internal regulation has dominated the field of genetic modification since the 1970s. | ||
| - | + | </p> | |
<h3>Presidential Council on Bioethics - 2010</h2> | <h3>Presidential Council on Bioethics - 2010</h2> | ||
<p>This summer the Presidential Council on Bioethics started a series of ongoing hearings on synthetic biology. This is an early sign of governmental actions which could possibly have massive effects on the field of synthetic biology in the United States. We highly recommend to those interested in the direction of plant biotechnology and synthetic biology as a whole.</p></div> | <p>This summer the Presidential Council on Bioethics started a series of ongoing hearings on synthetic biology. This is an early sign of governmental actions which could possibly have massive effects on the field of synthetic biology in the United States. We highly recommend to those interested in the direction of plant biotechnology and synthetic biology as a whole.</p></div> | ||
Revision as of 00:00, 15 October 2010
human practices background our vision the iGarden kit virtual iGarden opinion poll recycling references
the debate
Along with environmental activism, food awareness has recently come to prominence. Books such as The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan and movies such as Food, Inc. call upon the public to take greater ownership over what we consume. One of the major issues in food awareness that sometimes slips under the radar is that of genetically modified foods. The main argument for creating and growing genetically modified crops is the great potential they have as solutions for such problems such as world hunger, nutrient deficiency, resource managment, and pesticide avoidance. Despite this high potential, it is important to be wary of progress and stress safety in any creation of a new entity. Among the opponents of genetic modification of crops, many of the arguments revolve around wariness of the risks of gmo's. Below, we've outlined some of the major arguments made against the safety of gmo's, and the rebuttals made by the GE community.
| Health Risks | There are many unknowns with regard to the risks we take when consuming genetically engineered plants. In plant engineering, constructs are inserted randomly into the genome, which creates the potential for unanticipated effects on plant metabolism. It is near impossible to predict the creation of new allergens or the side production on toxins in plants from the changes in plant metabolics. | The risks that apply to genetically engineered plants also apply to plants cross-bred in the conventional manner. In traditional plant cross-breeding, whole chromosomes are transferred and may recombine in a random manner (talk about incorporation of genetic material from different kinds of plants). |
| Increased use of herbicides pesticides | ||
| Genetic Pollution | Genetically engineered plants have the potential to spread their genetic material to non-engineered strains and to native species, creating a threat to environmental security. It is difficult to track and recall if necessary genetic material that has already been released into the environment. | Genetically engineered plants are ususally less viable in the wild, and horizontal transfer is unlikely (why???) |
| Effects on Ecosystems | Butterflies + competition with native species (decrease in biodiversity | Look closer at the studies |
Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences and many others have made the business of agricultural biotech famous the world over. Often controversial, the prominent role of large corporations in this field has led many anti-GMO activists to equate genetic engineering with corporate profits. While crop biotech is a multi-billion dollar industry, it is important to keep in mind that the science behind it is no more intrinsically corporate than unmodified seed and plant companies. Our iGarden project strives to demonstrate by example how open-source, non-corporate plant modification can be fun, useful, and safe for everyday people and farmers alike. Whether the criticism of plant biotechnology corporations is founded or unfair, the science which underlies their business holds the power to save or improve lives from the developing world to suburbia, and should not be blithely thrown out along with criticized corporate practices. By allowing individuals to grow their own modified garden, our project aims to break the connection between coorporations and genetic crop technology to ensure new developments are judged on their merits and not merely by association.
Mad Cow Disease
Genetic Use Restriction Technology
Governmental regulation of genetic crop technology is a hot topic, and, typically for a field of such controversy, shapely divided in opinion. Frequently debates of how (if at all) the government should intervene in this field boil down to anti-GMO activists calling for a total ban of genetic modification in any circumstances, and a second group calling for no government intervention at all, with relatively little middle ground.
Finding the right balance for state and federal policy is exceptionally difficult due to the scope of genetic modification technology (encompassing everything from agriculture to industrial manufacturing to medicine). While our project focuses specifically on food and small-scale gardening, the iGarden would undoubtedly fall under the roof of any policy on synthetic biology or genetic technology. As such we take an interest not only in policy regarding genetically modified crop plants, but also in the US government's early stirrings towards examining synthetic biology as a whole.
The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA - 1975
In February 1975, an association of scientists met in Asilomar, California to discuss the implications and regulation of recombinant DNA technology. Out of this meeting came a series of self-regulatory rules which are an important pillar in biology lab safety to this day, perhaps most famously the designation of biology labs according to the riskiness of the experiments conducted there (BL1-BL4). This conference was significant not only in the actual rules it set for biology researchers, but also for the precedent of self-regulation by researchers. This early step taken by scientists preemptied governmental intervention more than 30 years ago, and because the rules were set by individuals highly knowledgable in the field, they may have been more effective and appropriate than those set by individual's in the government without such knowledge. On the other hand, critics of scientific self-regulation would argue that scientists have incentive to not regulate themselves enough. Good or bad, this form of internal regulation has dominated the field of genetic modification since the 1970s.
Presidential Council on Bioethics - 2010
This summer the Presidential Council on Bioethics started a series of ongoing hearings on synthetic biology. This is an early sign of governmental actions which could possibly have massive effects on the field of synthetic biology in the United States. We highly recommend to those interested in the direction of plant biotechnology and synthetic biology as a whole.
