产品,而不是过程!解释农业生物技术和食品安全的基本概念。

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-03-03 DOI:10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8
Giovanni Tagliabue
{"title":"产品,而不是过程!解释农业生物技术和食品安全的基本概念。","authors":"Giovanni Tagliabue","doi":"10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it.The so-called \"genetically modified organisms\" (\"GMOs\"), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties - most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful.Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety.\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Tagliabue\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it.The so-called \\\"genetically modified organisms\\\" (\\\"GMOs\\\"), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties - most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful.Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/3/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

大多数生命科学家都毫不留情地建议,对农产品的任何评估方法都应基于对表现型的检查,即食品、饲料和纤维品种的实际特征:任何新品种(或微生物、动物)对我们健康的影响都不取决于获得它的过程和技术。另一方面,所谓的“转基因生物”(“GMOs”)通常被定义为具有特殊属性的群体——最常被视为可疑的,甚至是有害的。一些社会科学家仍然认为,考虑这一过程是基于科学的理解和监管的正确背景。为了表明这种方法是完全错误的,并邀请科学家、教师和科学传播者向学生、政策制定者和广大公众解释这一错误,我们设想了一场对话,对话双方是一位社会科学家,他对基于过程的导向在风险评估中应该占有一定的权重持积极看法,而一些专家则提出了大量反对这一观点的论点。讨论的重点是新的食品安全。
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
Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety.

Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it.The so-called "genetically modified organisms" ("GMOs"), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties - most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful.Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety.

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
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
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