No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Marine Biotechnology: a Proposal for Regulatory Reform
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 May 2016
Abstract
Biotechnology companies are developing transgenic fish, shellfish, and microorganisms to supplement conventional marine aquaculture and aid in the bioremediation of polluted coastal waters. These products may be ready for open-environment field trials or commercial applications within two to four years. Regulatory authority in the field of marine biotechnology is poorly defined and ill prepared, however, and the science base presently available is not adequate to support credible ecological risk assessment of genetically engineered marine organisms.
In response, I offer two specific public policy recommendations: (1) an accelerated program of basic and applied research in marine ecology underwritten by a combination of government and private funds, and (2) the creation of a dedicated unit within the National Marine Fisheries Service responsible for regulatory oversight of transgenic marine organisms. If implemented, these reforms will encourage development in the marine biotechnology industry while laying the groundwork for appropriate ecological risk assessment and management.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences
References
Balint, P.J. et al. (1998). “Risks and Benefits of Marine Biotechnology: Conclusions and Recommendations.” In Zilinskas, R.A. and Balint, P.J., (eds.), Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms: Environmental and Economic Risks and Benefits. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Christensen, J. (1997). “Cultivating the World's Demand for Seafood.” New York Times (March 1):27, 29.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, J. (1998). “Gene Transfer in Aquatic Organisms in the Framework of Modern Biotechnology.” In de la Fuente, J. and Castro, F.O., (eds.), Gene Transfer in Aquatic Organisms. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fowle, J.R. III (1987). “Introduction.” In Fowle, J.R. III, (ed.), Application of Biotechnology: Environmental and Policy Issues. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
Great Lakes Commission (1996). Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 1996 Annual Report. Internet Website: http://www.glc.org/projects/ans/96rpt.html.Google Scholar
Gutrich, J.J. and Whiteman, H.H. (1998). “Analysis of the Ecological Risks Associated with Genetically Engineered Marine Macroorganisms.” In Zilinskas, R.A. and Balint, P.J., (eds.), Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms: Environmental and Economic Risks and Benefits. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Hite, D. and Gutrich, J.J. (1998). “Economic Analysis of Introduced Genetically Engineered Organisms.” In Zilinskas, R.A. and Balint, P.J., (eds.), Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms: Environmental and Economic Risks and Benefits. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Holdgate, M.W. (1986). “Survey and Conclusions: Characteristics and Consequences of Biological Invasions.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 314:733–44.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1996). “Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms: From Genetic Reductionism to Ecological Modeling.” In van Dommelen, A., (ed.), Coping with Deliberate Release: The Limits of Risk Assessment. Tilburg, Netherlands: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Levin, M. (1998). “Risk Assessment for Uncontained Applications of Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms.” In Zilinskas, R.A. and Balint, P.J., (eds.), Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms: Environmental and Economic Risks and Benefits. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
MacKensie, D. (1996). “Can We Make Supersalmon Safe?” New Scientist 27 (January): 14–15.Google Scholar
Matheson, J. (1997). Personal communication. Affiliation: Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
Miller, M. and Matheson, J. (1996). “Food Safety Evaluation of Transgenic Animals.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (1990). “Toxic Substances Policy.” In Portney, P.R., (ed.), Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Snow, A.A. and Moran-Palma, P. (1997). “Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: Potential Ecological Risks.” BioScience 47 (2):86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenquist, S. (1998). “Federal and State Regulations Relevant to Uncontained Applications of Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms.” In Zilinskas, R.A. and Balint, P.J., (eds.), Genetically Engineered Marine Organisms: Environmental and Economic Risks and Benefits. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee Working Group on Aquatic Biotechnology and Environmental Safety (1995). Performance Standards for Safely Conducting Research with Genetically Modified Fish and Shellfish. Documents 95-01 and 95-02.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1997). “Aquaculture Outlook.” Internet Website: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda.Google Scholar
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (1997). Internet Website: http://fingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov.Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997). Points to Consider in the Preparation of TSCA Biotechnology Submissions for Microorganisms. Washington, DC: USEPA/OPPTS.Google Scholar
von Schomberg, R.(1996). “The Laborious Transition to a Discursive Policy Process on the Release of Genetically Modified Organisms.” In van Dommelen, A., (ed.), Coping with Deliberate Release: The Limits of Risk Assessment. Tilburg, Netherlands: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D.S. et al. (1998). “Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States.” BioScience 48 (8):607–11.Google Scholar