Ethical perception of synthetic biology

African Journal of Biotechnology

Volumn 10, Issue 58, 2011, Pages 12469-12480

  Amin, Latifah ^a   Azlan, Noor Ayuni Ahmad ^a   Ahmad, Jamil ^a   Hashim, Hasrizul ^a   Samian, Abdul Latif ^a   Haron, Mohamad Sabri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Ethical perception; Genetically modified rice; Synthetic biology

Indexed keywords

ASCORBIC ACID;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; BUDDHIST; CHINESE; CHRISTIAN; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; ETHICS; FEMALE; FOOD COMPOSITION; HINDU; HUMAN; INDIAN; MALAY; MALAYSIA; MALE; MASS MEDIUM; NAMED GROUPS OF PERSONS; NON GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION; POLICY MAKER; PRODUCER; RACE DIFFERENCE; RELIGION; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SCIENTIST; SEX DIFFERENCE; SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY; TRANSGENIC PLANT; UNIVERSITY STUDENT; VITAMIN INTAKE;

ANIMALIA; MUS;

EID: 80053355915     PISSN: 16845315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Asante (2008). Genetically modified food-The dilemma of Africa. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 7(9): 1204-1211.
2. BABAS (1999). Ethical aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology. Report of the EFB Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Cambridge Biomedical Consultants: The Hague.
3. Batalion N (2000). Harmful effects of genetically modified foods. Available on http://www.cqs.com/50harm,htm.
4. Bekaert SS, Storozhenko P, Mehrshahi M, Bennett W, Lambert J, Gregory IK, Schubert J, Hugenholtz DV, Straeten, D, Hanson A(2008). Folate biofortification in food plants. Trends. Plant. Sci. 3: 28-35.
5. Caruso D (2008). Synthetic Biology an overview and recommendations for anticipating and addressing emerging risks. Science Progress.
6. Connor M, Siegrist M (2010). Factors influencing people's acceptance of gene technology: the role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness and social trust. Sci. Commun. 32(4): 514-538.
7. Comstock G (2000). Ethics and genetically modified crops. A brief for the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification of New Zealand.
8. Chopra P, Kamma A (2006). Engineering life through synthetic biology. Silico Biol. 6: 401-410.
9. Epstein (1998). Ethical and spiritual issues in genetic engineering. Ahimsa Voices: a Quarterly. J. Promo. Univ. Values, 5(4): 6-7.
10. Eisendel EF (2000). Cloning and its discontents - a Canadian perspective. Nat. Biotechnol. 18(9): 943-944.
11. Furedi F (1997). Culture of fear. Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. London-New York: Continuum.
12. Gaskell G, Alum N, Baouer M, Durant J, Allansdottir A, Bonfadelli H, Boy D, Cheveigne DS, Fjaestad B, Gutteling JM, Hampel J, Jelsoe E, Jesuino JG, Kohring M, Kronberger N, Midden C, Nielsen TH, Przestalski A, Rusanen T, Sakellaris G, Torgersen H, Twardowski T, Wagner W (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nat. Biotechnol. (18): 935-938.
13. Gaskel G, Allum N, Stares S (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project 'Life Sciences in European Society'. QLG7-CT-1999-00286.
14. Glenn LM (2004). Ethical issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics. Available on http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/glenn.html.
15. Gott M, Monamy V (2004). Ethics and transgenesis: toward a policy framework incorporating intrinsic objections and societal perceptions. ATLA-Altern. Lab. Anim. 32 (1): 391-396.
16. Herren RV (2005). Introduction to Biotechnology An Agricultural Revolution. United States of America: Thomsom Delmar Learning.
17. IDEA League Summerschool (2008). Synthetics: the ethics of Synthetic Biology.
18. James C (2009). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: The first fourteen years, 1996 to 2009. ISAAA Briefs No. 41, ISAAA, Ithaca: New York. Available on http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummar y/default.asp
19. Kirk SFL, Greenwood D, Cade JE, Pearman AD (2002). Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 38: 189-197.
20. Khush GS (1997). Origin, dispersal, cultivation and variation of rice. Plant Mol. Biol. 35: 25-34.
21. Latifah A, Jamaluddin MJ, Abdul Rahim MN, Mohamad O, Nor MM (2006). Comparison of Worldviews related to Attitude towards Modern Biotechnology across Religion and Races. J. Gen. Stud. 7: 87-100.
22. Latifah A, Jamaluddin MJ, Abdul Rahim MN (2007). Malaysian Public Awareness and Knowledge on Modern Biotechnology. J. Gen. Stud. 8: 195-2004.
23. Macer DRJ (2000). Bioethics: perceptions of biotechnology and policy implications. Int. J. Biotechnol. 3: 116-133.
24. Mayer JE (2005). Development and impact of golden rice. Paper presented in fda science forum, Washington DC. Polkinghorne JC (2000). Ethical issues in biotechnology. TIBTECH. 18(1):8-13.
25. Priest SH (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology. Nat. Biotechnol. 18(9): 939-942.
26. Rohrmann B (1999). Risk perception research: review and documentation. Research center juelich: rc studies #68.
27. Simon RM (2010). Gender differences in knowledge and attitude towards biotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 19(6): 642-653.
28. Singh OV, Ghai S, Paul D, Jain RK (2006). Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern. Mini Review. Appl. Microbiol. Microbiotechnol. 71: 598-607.
29. Sjöberg L (2008). Genetically Modified Food In The Eyes of The Public and Experts. Risk Manage. doi: 10.1057/rm.2008.2. 10: 168-193.
30. Stenholm CW, Waggoner DB (1992). Public Policy in Animal Biotechnology in the 1990s: Challenges and Opportunities. In MacDonald JF(Ed.) Animal Biotechnology: Opportunities and Challenges, National Agricultural Biotechnology Report no. 4. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, pp. 25-35.
31. Walsh G (2004). Second-generation biopharmaceuticals. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 58 (2): 185-19.
32. Wansink B, Kim J (2001). The marketing battle over genetically modified foods: false assumptions about consumer behaviour. Am. Behav. Sci. 44(8): 1405-1417.