Skip to main content
Log in

The connections between science and biosafety

  • Conference Proceedings “Science into Policy”
  • Published:
Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science and scientific thinking have provided the scientific framework and the evidence that supported and advanced the regulation and risk assessment of genetically engineered (GE) organisms in the environment since the 1980s. This framework for risk assessment has been generally accepted around the world. Scientific societies comprised of bodies of experts continue to provide important input to regulatory processes for the biosafety of GE organisms, enhancing the weight of the input provided as a society over that of individual scientists, although the input of thoughtful, individual scientists with credible, supported arguments should not be underestimated. Such efforts provide confidence by policy-makers and regulators that policies and decisions are based upon credible and substantial reports and research endorsed by the experts in the field. The alignment of research needs of regulators with biosafety research agendas for the products of biotechnology is an iterative process that includes opportunities to improve the communication between regulators and the research community. Government policy-makers, responsible for the stewardship of public funds, have dedicated millions of dollars for biosafety research and have worked to prioritize that research to accommodate what regulators identify as important and to enhance the use of the research accomplished. The integrity of scientists and the resulting science is of major importance when policies and regulatory decisions rely on that science (e.g. data quality) and the associated scientific conclusions. In recognition of this, government processes are being advanced to maintain and enhance that integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=302. Accessed 21 March 2013.

  2. http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/biotrack/. Accessed 21 March 2013.

References

  • Agricultural Biotechnology Risk Analysis Research Task Group (2007) Agricultural risk analysis biotechnology research in the federal government. National Science Foundation, Washington. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07208/nsf07208.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2013

  • Executive Office of the President (2009) Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Subject: scientific integrity. The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Washington. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09. Accessed 21 March 2013

  • Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1987) Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment: key issues. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1989) Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2004) Biological confinement of genetically engineered organisms. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012) National summit on strategies to manage herbicide-resistant weeds agenda: proceedings of a symposium. National Academies Press, Washington

  • Norsworthy JK, Ward SM, Shaw DR, Llewellyn RS, Nichols RL, Webster TM, Bradley KW, Frisvold G, Powles SB, Burgos NR, Witt WW, Barrett M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci special issue: 31–62

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1993) Safety considerations for biotechnology: scale-up of crop plants. OECD, Paris

  • OMB (Office of Management and Budget) (2004) Final information quality bulletin for peer review. Executive office of the President, Washington. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda_fy2005_m05-03. Accessed 21 March 2013

  • Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW II, Cormier SM (2011) Why and how to combine evidence in environmental assessments: weighing evidence and building cases. Sci Total Environ 409:1545–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiedje JM, Colwell RK, Grossman YL, Hodson RE, Lenski RE, Mack RN, Regal PJ (1989) The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology 70(2):298–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (1995) International technical guidelines for safety in biotechnology. Nairobi

  • USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2013) USDA scientific integrity policy handbook. http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-scientific-integrity-policy-handbook.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2013

  • USDA/APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) (1993) Genetically engineered organisms and products; notification procedures for the introduction of certain regulated articles; and petition for nonregulated status; final rule. Fed Regist 58:17044–17059

    Google Scholar 

  • Vencill WK, Nichols RL, Webster TM, Soteres JK, Mallory-Smith C, Burgos NR, Johnson WG, McClelland MR (2012) Herbicide resistance: toward an understanding of resistance development and the impact of herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Sci special issue: 2–30

  • Weed DL (2005) Weight of evidence: a review of concept and method. Risk Anal 25(6):1545–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally L. McCammon.

Additional information

Sally L. McCammon is a Science Advisor at BRS, APHIS, USDA. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United States Government.

Conference Proceedings “Science into Policy, improving uptake and adoption of research conference” 11th to 13th November 2013 in Brisbane, Australia, a conference sponsored by the OECD Co-operative Research Programme on Biological Resource Management for Sustainable Agricultural Systems.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCammon, S.L. The connections between science and biosafety. J. Verbr. Lebensm. 9 (Suppl 1), 77–83 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-014-0892-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-014-0892-x

Keywords

Navigation