Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:53:45.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethical Debates in Genetic Engineering: U.S. Scientists' Attitudes on Patenting, Germ-Line Research, Food Labeling, and Agri-Biotech Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Isaac Rabino
Isaac Rabino*
Affiliation:
Empire State College, State University of New York, USA
Get access

Abstract

A 1995 survey of 1,257 scientists working in the field of recombinant DNA research indicates wide areas of agreement as well as some noteworthy divisions when it comes to such thorny questions as patenting, germ-line research, food labeling, and biodiversity. In general, the scientists surveyed approve of patenting living organisms that result from rDNA research, but vary significantly on what should be patentable. They advocate human germ-line therapy, yet have reservations about using it for any but serious diseases. They oppose mandatory labeling of biologically engineered food products, but understand that the public has a right to know and advocate openness. Finally, they favor development of genetically modified crops, but recognize potential threats to biodiversity and maintain that publicly funded researchers should be legally obligated to consider the potential environmental effects of their research. Some clear differences arise between scientists working in industry and those in academia and between men and women.

Type
Genetic Engineering
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1998 , pp. 147 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

“Biotech Firms Square Off over Plant Patent” (1995). Science 268:1119.Google Scholar
Davison, A., Barns, I., and Schibeci, R. (1997). “Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 22:317–48.Google Scholar
“Decision Deferred on Modified Maize” (1996). Nature 384:203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Europe Agrees A Compromise” (1996). Nature 384:502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, B. (1997). “Biotechnology Company to Join Those Urging Labels on Genetically Altered Products.” The New York Times (February 24):B8.Google Scholar
Hallman, W. (1996). “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology: Another Look.” Nature/Biotechnology 14:35–38.Google Scholar
Hoban, T. (1997). “Consumer Acceptance of Biotechnology: An International Perspective.” Nature/Biotechnology 15:232–33.Google Scholar
Hoban, T. and Kendall, P. (1992). Consumer Attitudes about the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. North Carolina: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Y. (1996). “Genetic Soybeans Alarm Europeans.” The New York Times (November 7):D1.Google Scholar
Kaiser, J. (1996). “Pests Overwhelm Bt Cotton Crop.” Science 273:423.Google Scholar
King, D. (1991). “Patenting of Plants and Animals.” BFE 8:398.Google Scholar
Kolata, G. (1996). “With Cloning of Sheep, the Ethical Ground Shifts.” The New York Times (February 24):A1.Google Scholar
Kolata, G. (1998). “Scientists Brace for Changes in Path of Human Evolution.” The New York Times (March 21):A1,12.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1982). Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1991). Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. and Wrubel, R. (1996). Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. (1996). “Patent Office Faces 90-Year Backlog.” Science 292:645.Google Scholar
“A Moral Maize” (1996). The Economist (September 24):82.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC) (1996). Agricultural Biotechnology: Novel Products and New Partnerships. Ithaca, NY: NABC.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Biotechnology Council (NABC) (1997). NABC News (Fall): 1–9.Google Scholar
“NIH to Appeal Patent Decision” (1993). Science 259:302.Google Scholar
North Carolina Biotechnology Center and USDA Office of Agricultural Biotechnology (1993). Symbol, Substance and Science: The Societal Issues of Food Biotechnology, Conference Proceedings. North Carolina Biotechnology Center, June 28 and 29.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress (1987). New Developments in Biotechnology: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress (1991). Biotechnology in a Global Economy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress (1995). Federal Technology Transfer and the Human Genome Project. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Packer, K. and Webster, A. (1996). “Patenting Culture in Science: Reinventing the Scientific Wheel of Credibility.” Science, Technology and Human Values 21:427.Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1982). Splicing Life: A Report on the Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Beings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Purdum, T. (1996). “President Asks Experts for Advice on the New Reality of Cloning.” The New York Times (February 25):A15.Google Scholar
Rabino, I. (1994). “How European and U.S. Genetic Engineering Scientists View the Impact of Public Attention on Their Field: A Comparison.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 19:23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeburn, P. (1995). The Last Harvest: The Genetic Gamble that Threatens to Destroy American Agriculture. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Ratner, M. (1990). “Survey and Opinion: Barriers to Field-Testing Genetically Modified Organisms.” Biotechnology 8:196.Google Scholar
Stone, R. (1995). “Rockefeller Strikes Fat Deal with Amgen.” Science 268:631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varner, G. (1992). Ethics and Patenting of Transgenic Organisms: Introduction and Overview. Ithaca, NY: NABC.Google Scholar
Wadman, M. (1996). “Genetic Resistance Spreads to Consumers.” Nature 383:564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J., Gilman, M., Witkowski, J., and Zoller, M. (1992). Recombinant DNA. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Wivel, N., and Walters, L. (1993). “Germ-Line Gene Modification and Disease Prevention: Some Medical and Ethical Perspectives.” Science 262:533–38.Google Scholar
Zechendorf, B. (1994). “What the Public Thinks about Biotechnology.” Bio/Technology 12:870–73.Google Scholar