Our committee was given the task of examining the evidence regarding potential negative effects and benefits of currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and the potential benefits and negative effects of future GE crops. In carrying out this study, the committee members and I were well aware of the controversial nature of genetic engineering in the United States and globally. Before and during the committee’s first meeting, we received comments from people and groups expressing the view that the scientific evidence establishing the safety of current GE crops was so solid and well-reviewed that the only potentially useful task for the committee would be to examine emerging genetic-engineering technologies. We considered those comments but believed that available analyses were not complete and up to date and that an examination of the data on diverse biological and societal aspects of both current and future GE crops would therefore be useful. We received other comments indicating that research studies that found adverse biological or social effects of GE crops had been ignored, and because of our committee’s composition, we too would probably ignore them. We took all of the comments as constructive challenges.
Our committee embraced the Academics consensus-study process, which requires that "efforts are made to solicit input from individuals who have been directly involved in, or who have special knowledge of, the problem under consideration’’ and that a study “report should show that the committee has considered all credible views on the topics it addresses, whether or not those views agree with the committee's final positions. Sources must not be used selectively to justify a preferred outcome.” We listened to presentations from 80 people who had diverse expertise, experience, and perspectives on GE crops to augment the diversity represented on the committee; they are listed in Appendixes c and D. We also received and read more than 700 comments and documents sent to US from individuals and organizations about specific risks and benefits that could be associated with GE crops and their accompanying technologies. Beyond those sources of information, our committee carefully examined literature—peer-reviewed and non-reviewed—relevant to benefits and risks associated with GE crops in the United Slates and elsewhere.
Although it is true that articles exist that summarize much of the literature on GE crops, we committed ourselves to taking a fresh look at the primary literature itself. Our major goal in writing this report was to make available to the public, to researchers, and to policy-milkers a comprehensive review of the evidence that has been used in the debates about GE crops and information on relevant studies that are rarely referred to in the debates. Given the immense literature on GE crops, we suspect that we missed some relevant articles and specific results.
We received a number of broad comments that asked us to examine and make judgments about the merits of technology-intensive agriculture compared with more agroecological approaches. That would be an important comparison but was beyond the scope of the specific task given to the committee.
We recognized that some members of the public are skeptical of the literature on GE crops because of concerns that many experiments and results have been conducted or influenced by the industries that are profiting from these crops. Therefore, when we referred to articles in the three major chapters (4,5, and 6) of the report regarding current GE crops, we identified the affiliations of their primary authors and, when possible, the specific sources of their funding. That information is available on our study’s website (http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/).
Our committee embraced the Academics consensus-study process, which requires that "efforts are made to solicit input from individuals who have been directly involved in, or who have special knowledge of, the problem under consideration’’ and that a study “report should show that the committee has considered all credible views on the topics it addresses, whether or not those views agree with the committee's final positions. Sources must not be used selectively to justify a preferred outcome.” We listened to presentations from 80 people who had diverse expertise, experience, and perspectives on GE crops to augment the diversity represented on the committee; they are listed in Appendixes c and D. We also received and read more than 700 comments and documents sent to US from individuals and organizations about specific risks and benefits that could be associated with GE crops and their accompanying technologies. Beyond those sources of information, our committee carefully examined literature—peer-reviewed and non-reviewed—relevant to benefits and risks associated with GE crops in the United Slates and elsewhere.
Although it is true that articles exist that summarize much of the literature on GE crops, we committed ourselves to taking a fresh look at the primary literature itself. Our major goal in writing this report was to make available to the public, to researchers, and to policy-milkers a comprehensive review of the evidence that has been used in the debates about GE crops and information on relevant studies that are rarely referred to in the debates. Given the immense literature on GE crops, we suspect that we missed some relevant articles and specific results.
We received a number of broad comments that asked us to examine and make judgments about the merits of technology-intensive agriculture compared with more agroecological approaches. That would be an important comparison but was beyond the scope of the specific task given to the committee.
We recognized that some members of the public are skeptical of the literature on GE crops because of concerns that many experiments and results have been conducted or influenced by the industries that are profiting from these crops. Therefore, when we referred to articles in the three major chapters (4,5, and 6) of the report regarding current GE crops, we identified the affiliations of their primary authors and, when possible, the specific sources of their funding. That information is available on our study’s website (http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/).
To make the basis of each of our report’s conclusions accessible, we developed a user-friendly interface on the website that can be queried for each specific finding and recommendation in the report. The interface takes a user to the text in the report that culminated in each finding or recommendation. A second interface on the website has a summary list of all the comments and questions that were sent to US by the public or brought up in formal presentations; this interface enables a user to read how the committee addressed a specific comment or question.
We worked hard to analyze the existing evidence on GE crops, and we made recommendations based on our findings; ultimately, however, decisions about how to govern new' crops needs to be made by societies. There is an indisputable case for regulations to be informed by accurate scientific information, but history makes clear that solely “science-based regulation" is rare and not necessarily desirable. As a small example, how would science alone decide on how important it is to prevent a decline in monarch butterfly populations?
We received impassioned requests to give the public a simple, general, authoritative answer about GE crops. Given the complexity of GE issues, we did not see that as appropriate. However, we hope that we have given the public and policy-makers abundant evidence and a framework to inform their decisions about individual agricultural products.
In 1999. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman gave a speech1 about biotechnology in which he stated that “with all that technology has to offer, it is nothing if it’s not accepted. This boils down to a matter of trust. Trust in the science behind the process, but particularly trust in the regulatory process that ensures thorough review—including complete and open public involvement.” Trust must be based on more than authority and appealing arguments for or against genetic engineering. In this regard, while we recognize that no individual report can be completely balanced, we offer our report as a sincere effort at thoroughness and openness in examining the evidence related to prevalent claims about GE crops.
We worked hard to analyze the existing evidence on GE crops, and we made recommendations based on our findings; ultimately, however, decisions about how to govern new' crops needs to be made by societies. There is an indisputable case for regulations to be informed by accurate scientific information, but history makes clear that solely “science-based regulation" is rare and not necessarily desirable. As a small example, how would science alone decide on how important it is to prevent a decline in monarch butterfly populations?
We received impassioned requests to give the public a simple, general, authoritative answer about GE crops. Given the complexity of GE issues, we did not see that as appropriate. However, we hope that we have given the public and policy-makers abundant evidence and a framework to inform their decisions about individual agricultural products.
In 1999. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman gave a speech1 about biotechnology in which he stated that “with all that technology has to offer, it is nothing if it’s not accepted. This boils down to a matter of trust. Trust in the science behind the process, but particularly trust in the regulatory process that ensures thorough review—including complete and open public involvement.” Trust must be based on more than authority and appealing arguments for or against genetic engineering. In this regard, while we recognize that no individual report can be completely balanced, we offer our report as a sincere effort at thoroughness and openness in examining the evidence related to prevalent claims about GE crops.
[EBOOK] Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academes of SCIENCES - ENGINEERING - MEDICINE
Keyword: ebook, giáo trình, Genetically Engineered Crops, Experiences of Genetically Engineered Crops, Prospects of Genetically Engineered Crops, GMO, cây trồng biến đổi gen, kinh nghiệm cây trồng biến đổi gen, triển vọng của cây trồng biến đổi gen
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét
levantaihg@gmail.com