Jump to content

Bioscience Resource Project

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 5 March 2020 (removing PR, mainly self-sourced). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Type501(c)(3) educational nonprofit
FocusScience, Food and Agriculture, Health, Environment, Biotechnology, Biosafety
Established2006
LocationIthaca, New York
Key peopleJonathan Latham, PhD, Executive Director; and co-founder Allison Wilson, PhD, Science Director
Websiteshttp://www.bioscienceresource.org/ http://independentsciencenews.org/

The Bioscience Resource Project is an advocacy organization focused on agriculture-related biosciences since 2006.[1] In 2011, they started the Independent Science News website.

History

Drs. Allison Wilson and Jonathan Latham initiated the Bioscience Resource Project to help remedy a perceived deficit of independent scientific analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.[2]

Publications

The Bioscience Resource Project publishes biosafety reviews of genetic engineering techniques, such as plant transformation and the use of viral DNA to engineer virus resistance,[3] that are used to produce GM crops for commercial use.[4] The Project reviews (see 1.2 History for titles) are cited in academic articles and books on genetic engineering.[5]

Controversies

Contesting the precision of plant genetic engineering

Article Content: The Bioscience Resource Project’s biosafety analyses of genetic engineering techniques (see 1.3.2 Publications) challenge two key assumptions that underlie both current GMO regulation in the U.S.[6] and the claims of proponents of genetic engineering worldwide:[7] (1) that genetic engineering is a precise and predictable technique and (2) that unintended consequences resulting from the genetic engineering process are highly unlikely.[8]

Reception: Individuals, NGOs, and scientists critical of genetic engineering cite the Project's biosafety analyses to support the argument that, due to the likelihood of unintended effects,[9] each new genetically modified plant requires careful analysis and strict regulation.[10] Scientific and industry advocates of genetic engineering dispute this, arguing that genetic engineering produces unintended consequences that are equivalent to those found in conventionally bred plants.[11] An exchange [12] in Nature Biotechnology, that includes the viewpoint of Project scientists, illustrates both sides of the debate.

Challenging the idea that common western diseases are genetically determined

Article Content: In 2010, Independent Science News published “The Great DNA Data Deficit: Are Genes for Disease a Mirage?” The article brought together three separate bodies of scientific evidence to support the theory that lifestyle and environment, and not genes, are the important determinants of most common western diseases. The three bodies of evidence summarized included (1) Scientific reviews claiming the failure of GWA studies to find major disease genes,[13] (2) Research challenging the reliability of the heritability estimates for disease that were the reason to expect important disease genes,[14] and (3) Research indicating the existence of large environmental and lifestyle effects on the prevalence of common non-infectious diseases.[15] The article also questioned the value of genetic research compared to research into disease prevention and the study of non-genetic causes,[16] and it questioned the motives of human geneticists and government backers.[17]

Reception: After its publication, geneticist and environmentalist David Suzuki,[18] author Michael Pollan, scientist Marion Nestle, and doctor and columnist David Katz (Huffington Post) [19] cited "The Great DNA Deficit" and supported the contention that genes are not the major determinant of western disease susceptibility. At the same time the article's authors, and those who gave it positive reviews, were criticized by writers for various genetics websites, including Newsweek writer Mary Carmichael, on the Open Helix blog,[20] Discover magazine blogger Razib Khan,[21] Wired contributor and geneticist Daniel MacArthur,[22] and John Derbyshire of the New Republic.[23] The debate also reached National Public Radio, where Dr. Latham debated geneticist Stanley Nelson, MD on the Patt Morrison show.[24] Dr. Latham's subsequent Guardian article "Failure of the Genome" [25] resulted in further debate over the value of human genetics research in the prevention and treatment of common non-infectious disease.[26]

See also

Other organizations

References

  1. ^ Lotter, D. (2009) The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise Archived 2012-03-22 at the Wayback Machine. Int. Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food. 16(1) p. 40.
  2. ^ BGER 21:299-324.; Peekhaus W. (2010) The Neoliberal University and Agricultural Biotechnology: Reports from the Field. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 30(6) pp 418-426.; Lotter, D. (2009) The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity Archived 2012-08-16 at the Wayback Machine. Int. Jrnl. of Soc. Of Agr. and Food. 16(1) 50-68.; Diels J. et al. (2011) Association of Financial or Professional Conflict of Interest to Research Outcomes on Health Risks or Nutritional Assessment Studies of Genetically modified Products Archived 2011-12-15 at the Wayback Machine. Food Policy 36:197-203.
  3. ^ For a review see: Dasgupta I et al. (2003) Genetic Engineering for Virus Resistance. Current Science 8(3) 341-354.
  4. ^ For a current list of genetically engineered crops that have been deregulated for commercial use or for links to the applications for deregulation themselves (i.e. the documents that describe the engineering techniques used and the safety tests performed, that are submitted by applicants to regulators when they claim GMO biosafety) see: Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS Archived June 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
  5. ^ To see who has cited the articles go to the Google Scholar citation results for each paper. One example can be accessed at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4804465282536140920&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en
  6. ^ Crawford (2003) Regulation of Foods Derived From Plants, Statement of Lester M. Crawford, Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development, and Research House Committee on Agriculture.; Freese W. and Schubert D. (2004) Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods Archived 2011-12-08 at the Wayback Machine. BGER 21:299-324.; Pelletier DL (2006) FDA’s Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods -- Scientific, Legal and Political Dimensions. Food Policy 31:570-591.
  7. ^ Some examples are: Feldbaum (1998) Can Bioengineers Feed the Planet?; Jelenić (2005) Food Safety Evaluation of Crops Produced through Genetic Engineering – How to Reduce Unintended Effects?, Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 56 (p.185, Abstract)
  8. ^ Kessler, D.A., Taylor, M.R., Maryanski, J.H., Flamm, W.L., and Kahl, L.S. 1992. The Safety of Foods Developed by Biotechnology. Science 265: 1747-1832.
  9. ^ Haselberger AG (2003) Codex Guidelines for GM Foods Include the Analysis of Unintended Effects Archived July 11, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. Nature Biotechnology 21(7) 739-741.; A database and explanation of unintended effects in GM organisms has been compiled by the Nature Institute at: Unintended Effects of Genetic Manipulation
  10. ^ Examples include: Lotter, D. 2008. The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise Archived 2012-03-22 at the Wayback Machine. Int. Jrnl. Of Soc. Of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 50-68; Pusztai A. and S. Bardocz (2011) Potential health effects of foods derived from genetically modified plants: what are the issues? Archived October 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, TWN Biotechnology and Biosafety Series 14.; Dolezel M. et al. (2009) Standardising the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants in the EU. Final report for the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Germany, Wien.; Comments submitted on Arborgen LLC GE Eucalyptus field testing. Accessed at: [1][permanent dead link]
  11. ^ Schouten HJ and Jacobsen E (2007) Are mutations in genetically modified plants dangerous?[permanent dead link], Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Volume 2007, Article ID 82612, 2 pages doi:10.1155/2007/82612.; Parrott W. et al. (2010) Application of food and feed safety assessment principles to evaluate transgenic approaches to gene modulation in crops. Food and Chemical Toxicity.
  12. ^ See: Bradford KJ et al. (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nature Biotechnology 23(4)439-444 and response: Regulatory regimes for transgenic crops (2005) Nature Biotechnology 23(7)785-789. A PDF file of this exchange about GM crop regulation can be found at: http://vegetables.wsu.edu/Hort-503/strauss2005-naturebiotech.pdf; Viewpoints of Project Scientists are on p. 785.
  13. ^ e.g. Dermitzakis and Clark (2009) Life after GWA Studies. Science 326:239-240.
  14. ^ e.g. Lewontin R.C., Rose S., and Kamin L.J. (1984) Not in Our Genes. Pantheon Books New York, USA.
  15. ^ e.g. Fraser GS and Shavlik DJ (2001) Ten Years of Life: Is it a Matter of Choice? Arch Int. Medicine 161:1645-52.; Esselstyn CS et al. (1995) A Strategy to Arrest and Reverse Coronary Artery Disease: A 5-year Longitudinal Study of a Single Physician’s Practice. J. Family Practice 41:560-568].
  16. ^ Examples of this viewpoint include Hall et al. (2010) Being More Realistic about the Public Health Impact of Genome Medicine. PLoS Medicine 7(10) Access no. e1000347.; Morgan I (2003) The Biological Basis of Myopic Refractive Error. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 86: 276-288; Mozaffarian D et al. (2009) Lifestyle Risk Factors and New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus in Older Adults. Arch. Int. Med. 169: 798-807.
  17. ^ Example of this viewpoint include Lewontin R.C. (1993) Biology as ideology. Penguin books New York, USA; Gundle et al. (2010) ‘To Prove this is Industry’s Best Hope’: Big Tobacco’s support of Research on the Genetics of Nicotine Addiction. Addiction 105:974-983.
  18. ^ Genome studies lead to unexpected results Archived 2011-11-03 at the Wayback Machine, David Suzuki, April 2011 Blog Post.
  19. ^ Katz D. (2010) Is there a genie in the genome?. Huffington Post.
  20. ^ "DNA Deniers", Open Helix Blog Post in Dec 2010, by Mary Carmichael.
  21. ^ Heritibility and Genes as Causes, Discover Magazine Blog Post by Razib Khan in December 2010.
  22. ^ Bioscience Resource Project critique of modern genomics -- a missed opportunity, Wired Blog Post by Daniel MacArthur on December 15, 2010.
  23. ^ Environmental determinism, National Review Blog Post by John Derbyshire in December 2011.
  24. ^ Radio debate between Dr. JR Latham and S Nelson, MD (2011) Why we get sick – debating the genetic vs. environmental causes of disease.
  25. ^ JR Latham (2011) The failure of the genome. The Guardian.
  26. ^ A. Rutherford (2011) The human genome was just the starting point. The Guardian.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioscience_Resource_Project&oldid=944049625"