澳大利亚对基因组编辑生物的监管。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y
Peter Thygesen
{"title":"澳大利亚对基因组编辑生物的监管。","authors":"Peter Thygesen","doi":"10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whether organisms developed with the use of genome editing techniques, or food derived from such organisms, are, or should be, regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically modified (GM) food, respectively, remains a subject of debate globally. Much of the discussion has been scientific and focussed on the similar genetic outcomes of some genome editing techniques and 'conventional' or natural mutagenesis. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, have considered, or are considering, how their regulatory frameworks will deal with such organisms and products. In Australia, organisms developed with site directed nuclease 1 (SDN-1, with no added template to guide homology-directed repair) are not regulated as GMOs, pursuant to exclusions in the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The exclusion of SDN-1 organisms from regulation in Australia is sometimes misrepresented, including in scientific peer reviewed publications, as extending to all genome edited organisms. This highlights the importance for researchers, developers and other stakeholders to understand that whether genome edited organisms are, or are not, subject to regulation as GMOs in a particular jurisdiction may quintessentially be a legal question, not a scientific one.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulation of genome edited organisms in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Thygesen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Whether organisms developed with the use of genome editing techniques, or food derived from such organisms, are, or should be, regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically modified (GM) food, respectively, remains a subject of debate globally. Much of the discussion has been scientific and focussed on the similar genetic outcomes of some genome editing techniques and 'conventional' or natural mutagenesis. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, have considered, or are considering, how their regulatory frameworks will deal with such organisms and products. In Australia, organisms developed with site directed nuclease 1 (SDN-1, with no added template to guide homology-directed repair) are not regulated as GMOs, pursuant to exclusions in the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The exclusion of SDN-1 organisms from regulation in Australia is sometimes misrepresented, including in scientific peer reviewed publications, as extending to all genome edited organisms. This highlights the importance for researchers, developers and other stakeholders to understand that whether genome edited organisms are, or are not, subject to regulation as GMOs in a particular jurisdiction may quintessentially be a legal question, not a scientific one.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用基因组编辑技术开发的生物体或由此类生物体衍生的食品是否或是否应分别作为转基因生物(GMO)或转基因食品加以监管,仍是全球范围内争论的一个话题。大部分讨论都是科学性的,集中在一些基因组编辑技术与 "传统 "或自然诱变技术的相似遗传结果上。包括澳大利亚在内的许多辖区已经考虑或正在考虑其监管框架将如何处理此类生物体和产品。在澳大利亚,根据《2001 年基因技术条例》中的除外规定,使用定点定向核酸酶 1(SDN-1,不添加指导同源定向修复的模板)开发的生物不作为转基因生物进行监管。在澳大利亚,将 SDN-1 生物排除在监管范围之外有时会被误解,包括在同行评审的科学出版物中,被认为适用于所有基因组编辑生物。这突出表明,研究人员、开发人员和其他利益相关者必须明白,基因组编辑生物在特定司法管辖区是否作为转基因生物受到监管,本质上可能是一个法律问题,而非科学问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Regulation of genome edited organisms in Australia.

Whether organisms developed with the use of genome editing techniques, or food derived from such organisms, are, or should be, regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically modified (GM) food, respectively, remains a subject of debate globally. Much of the discussion has been scientific and focussed on the similar genetic outcomes of some genome editing techniques and 'conventional' or natural mutagenesis. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, have considered, or are considering, how their regulatory frameworks will deal with such organisms and products. In Australia, organisms developed with site directed nuclease 1 (SDN-1, with no added template to guide homology-directed repair) are not regulated as GMOs, pursuant to exclusions in the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The exclusion of SDN-1 organisms from regulation in Australia is sometimes misrepresented, including in scientific peer reviewed publications, as extending to all genome edited organisms. This highlights the importance for researchers, developers and other stakeholders to understand that whether genome edited organisms are, or are not, subject to regulation as GMOs in a particular jurisdiction may quintessentially be a legal question, not a scientific one.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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