From asilomar to industrial biotechnology: Risks, reductionism and regulation

Science as Culture

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 309-323

  Krimsky, Sheldon ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT DNA;

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; ASILOMAR CONFERENCE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DIAMOND V. CHAKRABARTY; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FREEDOM; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HAZARDOUS WASTE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HISTORY; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INDUSTRY; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; NIH GUIDELINES; OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; PATENT; PERSONNEL; POLICY; POLITICS; POLLUTION; RECOMBINANT DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; SOCIAL CONTROL; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM; TUMOR VIRUS; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

ASILOMAR CONFERENCE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DIAMOND V. CHAKRABARTY; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH; NIH GUIDELINES; OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; RECOMBINANT DNA ADVISORY COMMITTEE;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONTAINMENT OF BIOHAZARDS; CULTURE; DNA, RECOMBINANT; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; FREEDOM; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; INDUSTRY; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); ONCOGENIC VIRUSES; ORGANISMS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PATENTS; POLITICS; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL; SOCIAL CONTROL, INFORMAL; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 33744546130     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430500368998     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alexander, M., 1985. Ecological consequences; reducing the uncertainties. Issues in Science and Technology, 1:60
2. Beckwith, J., 1970. Gene expression in bacteria and some concerns about the misuse of science. Biotechnological Reviews, 34:222–227.
3. Beckwith, J., 2002. Making Genes, Making Waves:A Social Activist in Science, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
4. Brill, W., 1985. Safety concerns and genetic engineering in agriculture. Science, 227:381–384.
5. Chemical and Engineering News. 1977. News forum. Chemical and Engineering News, 30 May
6. Colwell, R. K., Norse, E. A., Pimentel, D., and Sharples, F. E., 1985. Genetic engineering in agriculture. Science, 229:111–112.
7. Diamond v. Chakrabarty. 1980. 16 June 447 US 303; 100 S. Ct. 2204;
8. Gladwell, M., 2000. The Tipping Point, New York:Little Brown and Company.
9. Gottweis, H., 1998. Governing Molecules:The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
10. Hayek, F. von., 1960. The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
11. Ho, M., 1998. Genetic Engineering:Dream or Nightmare?, Bath, UK:Gateway.
12. Kessler, D., Taylor, M., and Maryanski, J., 1992. The safety of foods developed by biotechnology. Science, 256:1747–1749.
13. Krimsky, S., 1982. Genetic Alchemy:The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
14. Krimsky, S., 1991. Biotechnics and Society:The Rise of Industrial Genetics, New York:Praeger.
15. Krimsky, S., 1999. The profit of scientific discovery and its normative implications. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 75:15–39.
16. Krimsky, S., 2000. Risk assessment and regulation of bioengineered food products. International Journal of Biotechnology, 2:231–238.
17. Losey, J., Raynor, L., and Carter, M., 1999. Transgenic pollen harm monarch larvae. Nature, 399:214
18. Murphy, N., and Krimsky, S., 2003. Implicit precaution, scientific inference, and indirect evidence:the basis for the US Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of genetically modified crops. New Genetics and Society, 22:159–175.
19. National Academy of Science. 1987. “ Committee on the Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms into the Environment ”. In Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment:Key Issues, Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
20. National Academy of Sciences. 1989. “ National Research Council, Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment ”. In Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms, Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
21. Norse, E., 1986. Testimony on the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, House Committee on Science and Technology, US Congress, 23 July. Reprinted in, Recombinant DNA Technical Bulletin, 9, 171–177
22. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Executive Office of the President (1986) Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Federal Register, 5123302–23350.
23. Schubert, D., 2002. A different perspective on GM food. Nature Biotechnology, 20:969
24. Shapiro, J., Beckwith, J., and Eron, L., 1969. Letter. Nature, 224:1337
25. Shiva, V., 2005. “ Global trade and intellectual property:a threat to indigenous resources ”. In Rights and Liberties in the Biotech Age, Edited by:Krimsky, S., and Shorett, P., 98–106. Lantham, MD:Rowman Littlefield Publishers.
26. US Food and Drug Administration. 2001. Premarket notice concerning bioengineered foods:proposed rule. Federal Register, 66:4706–4738. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr010118.html
27. US Senate, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session. Committee on the Judiciary. 1952. Revision of Title 35, United States Code, 27 June (to accompany H.R. 7794)
28. Westing, A., 1984. Herbicides in War:The Long-term Ecological and Human Consequences, Edited by:Westing, A., London:Taylor Francis.
29. Wright, S., 1990. Preventing a Biological Arms Race, Edited by:Wright, S., Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
30. Wright, S., 1994. Molecular Politics, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.