A Cross-Sectional Survey of Biosafety Professionals Regarding Genetically Modified Insects.

IF 0.5 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Applied Biosafety Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.1177/1535676019888047
David A O'Brochta, Willy K Tonui, Brinda Dass, Stephanie James
{"title":"A Cross-Sectional Survey of Biosafety Professionals Regarding Genetically Modified Insects.","authors":"David A O'Brochta, Willy K Tonui, Brinda Dass, Stephanie James","doi":"10.1177/1535676019888047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Genetic technologies such as gene editing and gene drive create challenges for existing frameworks used to assess risk and make regulatory determinations by governments and institutions. Insect genetic technologies including transgenics, gene editing, and gene drive may be particularly challenging because of the large and increasing number of insect species being genetically modified and the degree of familiarity with these organisms and technologies by biosafety officials charged with making containment decisions. Methods: An anonymous online survey of biosafety professionals was distributed to the membership of ABSA International, a global society of biosafety professionals, to investigate their perspectives on their preparedness to meet these new challenges. Results: Existing guidance used to make containment decisions for nongenetically modified insects was widely seen as adequate, and most respondents thought the available guidance for making containment decisions for genetically modified insects with and without gene drives was inadequate. Most respondents reported having less confidence in their decisions concerning containment of genetically modified insects compared to decisions involving genetically modified microbes, (noninsect) animals, and plants. Conclusions: These results reveal a need for additional support for biosafety professionals to improve the quality of and confidence in containment decisions regarding genetically modified insects with and without gene drive. These needs might be addressed by increasing training, updating existing guidance, creating new guidance, and creating a third-party accreditation entity to support institutions. Sixty percent of the respondents said they either would or might use a voluntary third-party accreditation service to support insect containment decisions.","PeriodicalId":7962,"journal":{"name":"Applied Biosafety","volume":"25 1","pages":"19-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1535676019888047","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Biosafety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1535676019888047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Genetic technologies such as gene editing and gene drive create challenges for existing frameworks used to assess risk and make regulatory determinations by governments and institutions. Insect genetic technologies including transgenics, gene editing, and gene drive may be particularly challenging because of the large and increasing number of insect species being genetically modified and the degree of familiarity with these organisms and technologies by biosafety officials charged with making containment decisions. Methods: An anonymous online survey of biosafety professionals was distributed to the membership of ABSA International, a global society of biosafety professionals, to investigate their perspectives on their preparedness to meet these new challenges. Results: Existing guidance used to make containment decisions for nongenetically modified insects was widely seen as adequate, and most respondents thought the available guidance for making containment decisions for genetically modified insects with and without gene drives was inadequate. Most respondents reported having less confidence in their decisions concerning containment of genetically modified insects compared to decisions involving genetically modified microbes, (noninsect) animals, and plants. Conclusions: These results reveal a need for additional support for biosafety professionals to improve the quality of and confidence in containment decisions regarding genetically modified insects with and without gene drive. These needs might be addressed by increasing training, updating existing guidance, creating new guidance, and creating a third-party accreditation entity to support institutions. Sixty percent of the respondents said they either would or might use a voluntary third-party accreditation service to support insect containment decisions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于转基因昆虫的生物安全专业人员横断面调查。
背景:基因编辑和基因驱动等遗传技术给政府和机构用于评估风险和做出监管决定的现有框架带来了挑战。包括转基因、基因编辑和基因驱动在内的昆虫遗传技术可能特别具有挑战性,因为正在进行基因改造的昆虫种类越来越多,而且负责制定遏制决策的生物安全官员对这些生物和技术的熟悉程度也越来越高。方法:向ABSA国际(一个全球性的生物安全专业人士协会)的成员分发了一份匿名的生物安全专业人士在线调查,调查他们对应对这些新挑战的准备情况的看法。结果:人们普遍认为,用于对非转基因昆虫作出收容决定的现有指导是充分的,大多数答复者认为,用于对有或没有基因驱动的转基因昆虫作出收容决定的现有指导是不充分的。大多数答复者报告说,与涉及转基因微生物、(非昆虫)动物和植物的决定相比,他们对有关遏制转基因昆虫的决定缺乏信心。结论:这些结果表明,需要为生物安全专业人员提供额外支持,以提高有关有或没有基因驱动的转基因昆虫的控制决策的质量和信心。这些需求可以通过增加培训、更新现有指南、创建新指南和创建第三方认证实体来支持机构来解决。60%的受访者表示,他们要么会或可能会使用自愿的第三方认证服务来支持昆虫控制决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Biosafety
Applied Biosafety Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Applied Biosafety (APB), sponsored by ABSA International, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal committed to promoting global biosafety awareness and best practices to prevent occupational exposures and adverse environmental impacts related to biohazardous releases. APB provides a forum for exchanging sound biosafety and biosecurity initiatives by publishing original articles, review articles, letters to the editors, commentaries, and brief reviews. APB informs scientists, safety professionals, policymakers, engineers, architects, and governmental organizations. The journal is committed to publishing on topics significant in well-resourced countries as well as information relevant to underserved regions, engaging and cultivating the development of biosafety professionals globally.
期刊最新文献
Decontamination Validation of the BSL-4 Chemical Disinfectant Deluge Shower System. Call for Volume 30 (2025) Special Issue Papers: Biosafety and Biosecurity for Potential Pandemic Pathogens and Dual-Use Research of Concern: Deadline for Manuscript Submission: October 31, 2024. Safeguarding Mail-Order DNA Synthesis in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Frequency of Leaks from Conical Centrifuge Tubes Boundary Integrity Testing of Containment Level 3 (Biological Safety Level 3) Laboratories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1