4.7 Review

Revisiting Risk Governance of GM Plants: The Need to Consider New and Emerging Gene-Editing Techniques

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01874

关键词

genetically modified plants; crop breeding; risk assessment; CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas9; transgenic plants

资金

  1. European Union [741402]
  2. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, BfN) - The Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety, (Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit, BMUB) [FKZ 351784100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New and emerging gene-editing techniques make it possible to target specific genes in species with greater speed and specificity than previously possible. Of major relevance for plant breeding, regulators and scientists are discussing how to regulate products developed using these gene-editing techniques. Such discussions include whether to adopt or adapt the current framework for GMO risk governance in evaluating the impacts of gene-edited plants, and derived products, on the environment, human and animal health and society. Product classification or definition is one of several aspects of the current framework being criticized. Further, knowledge gaps related to risk assessments of gene-edited organisms-for example of target and off-target effects of intervention in plant genomes-are also of concern. Resolving these and related aspects of the current framework will involve addressing many subjective, value-laden positions, for example how to specify protection goals through ecosystem service approaches. A process informed by responsible research and innovation practices, involving a broader community of people, organizations, experts, and interest groups, could help scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders address these complex, value-laden concerns related to gene-editing of plants with and for society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据