An Introduction to Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation in the U.S.

Author(s):  
Chris A. Wozniak ◽  
Annabel Fellman Waggoner ◽  
Sheryl Reilly
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Carr ◽  
Les Levidow

In the public debate about agricultural biotechnology, an important source of dispute has been the industry's stated aim of further industrializing agriculture. Critics and proponents have argued their case using the language of risk, which entails an implicit ethics, in response, regulators have tended to separate ‘risk ’ from ‘ethics ’, and assign judgements about each to specialists. This administrative separation encourages public deference to expert assessment. By treating implicit value judgements as merely technical matters, such regulation serves to legitimize the biotechnology R&D priorities and marginalize any broader public debate. Thus the official scope of ‘bioethics ’ is itself political.


Author(s):  
Thomas P. Redick ◽  
Theodore A. Feitshans ◽  
Megan R. Galey

1996 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Svatos

Biotechnology surpasses even computer technology in predictions of its potential for revolutionary effects on humankind. It includes agribusiness (genetically engineered plants, animals, hormones, etc.) and phar-maceuticals (diagnostics, genetic therapies, etc.). The U.S. government began investing heavily in biotechnology research in the 1980s, and by 1987 had spent approximately $2.7 billion to support research and development (R and D), including $150 million for agricultural biotechnology. The approximately sixty U.S. biotechnology companies invested $3.2 billion in R and D in 1991 alone, with a total of more than $10 billion spent since the industry began in the late 1970s.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document