BioTech Articles

This chapter sketches the context of the rest of the book, of which the central question is: considering the fundamental differences of opinion about novel technologies, how should governments deal politically with the intractable disagreement following from this? The broad debate about the genetic modification of animals in plants in is analysed. It is shown that disagreements exist, for example, about whether or not genetic engineers commit the fallacy of genetic determinism, whether biotechnology is like playing God, about the question whether the welfare and integrity of animals is violated, about whether or not we should label genetically modified food, about the question whether GM-crops lead to a loss of biodiversity, etc. This analysis reveals that this debate is multi-dimensional and that different sources of disagreement underpin the pluralism in our society regarding novel technologies, such as biotechnology. Seven sources of disagreement are distinguished: factual, scientific, definitional, interest-based, value, moral, and metaphysical disagreements. Because of their fundamental nature many of these problems are intractable. It is argued that in a policy context the controversy about biotechnology can be characterised as an unstructured problem: a problem which is based on both normative and scientific uncertainties and which involves conflicts about the goals of policy, the procedures that should be followed, and the instruments that should be used, and which involves a large number of political actors. Intractability can occur on a policy level when governments address the wrong policy problem. This happens when they treat unstructured problems as structured or moderately structured, by employing the strategies of depoliticisation by relegating the problem to the domain of experts, or of narrow problem demarcation. These strategies lead citizens to feel that their viewpoints are not taken seriously, which leads to distrust of authorities, non-compliance or protest, and ultimately to intractability. In this context, it is acknowledged more and more that expert knowledge is not purely objective, that it is not infallible, and that lay persons can contribute certain experiential knowledge that is often overlooked by scientific experts. For this reason, Hisschemöller and Hoppe argue that in the case of unstructured problems we need to adopt a learning strategy; we need broad public debate at an early stage involving both lay persons and experts, who have a similar status. The debate needs to focus not only on solutions, but also on problem definition.

No one discovery, event, person, or product alone defines or typifies plant biotechnology. Biotechnology plants, known scientifically as transgenic plants or genetically modified plants (GMPs), are derived from a blend of ancient agricultural practices and modern genetics-based technologies. Traditionally, plants served societies primarily for basic needs, such as food and shelter from the environment. Some early cultures made use of whole plants and plant compounds for medical and religious purposes. Plants took esthetic roles as civilizations grew. Many plants in early civilizations were selected for their beauty and fragrance to grow in gardens and in homes. Biotechnology significantly improved the traditional use of plants by improving the way plants are grown and the quality of the plant products. It has also greatly expanded the roles of plants within the past 20 years. Plants are now used for biomanufacturing a variety of commercial and industrial products. They are also put to work for a host of bioremediation purposes (Shmaefsky 2007).

This chapter provides an overview of recent biotechnology developments in ten CEE countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. The overview covers the period 2002–2005 and considers these countries’ performance in biotechnology as well as their policies and funding for biotechnology research and commercialisation. The chapter presents data and indicators of biotechnology performance, the arrangements for policy-making, the funding of biotechnology research and a discussion of the policy characteristics likely to support the development of biotechnology S&T systems. Findings show that countries are developing capabilities in biotechnology which contributes to a competence to absorb and utilise the knowledge that is being created in the rest of the world. There is a trend to focus on research related to pharmaceutical biotechnology and its applications. However, this strategy has limited potential to support economic growth in countries which lack a strong pharmaceutical sector. The study concludes that CEE countries are more likely to gain economic benefits from their biotechnology research by identifying and supporting several areas of biotechnology research relevant to strong economic sectors within their countries

The purpose of this study is to explore the characteristics and patterns of the knowledge linkage between domestic and international academia–industry in Chinese biotechnology research and development (R&D) network, based on the database of State Intellectual Property Office of P.R. China (SIPO), and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The analysis is focused on the period 2000–2007, a rapid increasing period for Chinese biotechnology industry development. The trajectory of development and knowledge linkage in the Chinese biotechnology industry differentiate from developed countries. Although China lacks both world-class knowledge base and other aspects of infrastructure, the spin-off of R&D FDI from developed countries in China attracting by low-cost, improving quality talents and great potential markets, intensifying collaborations in domestic academia and industry and the networking role of returnees between global and local, enable China to catch up in biotechnology industry, despite of some obstacles in its innovation system.

Immobilized cell technology attracts considerable attention because of the many advantages it offers over conventional suspended-cell fermentations. Important advances continue to be made in the potential use of immobilized cells as biocatalysts. This review is mainly devoted to the analysis of recent literature on the applications of immobilized fungal cell systems, ranging from the production or transformation of useful compounds (e.g. organic acids, enzymes, antibiotics, steroids, etc.) to wastewater treatment. The problems and future industrial applications are also discussed.

In cases of intractable disagreement about complex issues such as biotechnology, governments are faced with the need to make regulatory decisions. One way in which governments have sought to make expedient decisions in the face of public disquiet and persistent moral disagreement is to delegate the decision-making process to a politically independent committee. Committees have been established as a way to respond to the increasing call for more public deliberation. This move can be regarded as an attempt to depoliticise the problem. When we delegate decision-making to an expert committee we assume that we are dealing particularly with scientific uncertainty, rather than normative uncertainty. The hypothesis of this chapter is that committees that acknowledge that normative uncertainty exists as well should be able to deal better with intractable disagreement than committees that do not. A double comparative analysis is made between two biotechnology ethics committees, the Committee for Animal Biotechnology (CAB) in the Netherlands, and the Gene Technology Ethics Committee (GTEC) in Australia. The hypothesis of the chapter turns out to be correct to a certain extent; the debate both within the CAB and between the CAB and the public did appear to be more open and respectful than that of the GTEC. While in both countries citizens were disillusioned with their lack of influence and this could lead to more intractability, in the Netherlands at least the dialogue was kept open between regulators, opponents and proponents of animal biotechnology. In Australia there appeared to be more lobbying and influence from the biotechnology industry and more suspicion of vested interests by the key players. It can be concluded that the political culture of each country was highly influential in shaping regulation, the decision-making process itself, and responses to it. The decision to delegate decision-making to an ‘independent’ committee of experts, therefore, may be an attempt to depoliticise the conflict, but in reality fails to do so. What, then, is the proper role of an ethics committee? Committees should have a role in ensuring that ethics is incorporated in the decision-making process. However, they should not have the final say in decisions, but should primarily provide expert accounts for the benefit of both the public and political debate. In other words, the buck of making decisions should not be passed to committees; decisions should be made in the political arena, on the basis of a public debate that involves a broader public and in which the committee provides input. In light of these criticisms it can be concluded that the committee system is not the most appropriate way of giving shape to the call for more public deliberation in situations of intractable disagreement.

Globally, science curricula have been described as outdated, and students perceive school science as lacking in relevance. Declines in senior secondary and tertiary student participation in science indicate an urgent need for change if we are to sustain future scientific research and development, and perhaps more importantly, to equip students with the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions related to scientific research. This paper argues that a good starting point would be the inclusion of more contemporary areas of science in middle school curricula. One such area with continually emerging developments is biotechnology. This paper further argues the need for research into the impact of biotechnology education that would allow students to go beyond learning about biotechnological processes and products to explore their benefits and risks through an integrated approach, where biotechnology education were extended to include subject areas beyond science, such as social sciences, health education, and English. Such an approach is important, in light of research that suggests that the general public has a limited understanding of biotechnology and that public dissemination of information is insufficient to allow individuals to make informed decisions about or to develop attitudes towards, the varied applications of biotechnology. If we are to educate students to be tomorrow’s informed decision-makers, we must start by addressing their understanding of and attitudes towards emerging sciences. Further research is needed to broaden our understanding of how to achieve these goals.

DNA and Drug Testing Services
Phone 919-851-1019