scholarly journals Performativity of expectations

Elem Sci Anth ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomiko Yamaguchi
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Social Dynamics ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Crop Productivity ◽  
Sociotechnical Networks ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
New Varieties

The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 has drawn attention to gene editing technologies that enable genetic material to be added, removed, or altered at particular locations in the genome. Applied to plant modification, gene editing technologies are expected to improve crop productivity and profitability, quality, food safety, and the environment, while also enabling breeders to develop entirely new varieties. Excitement about these technologies spread quickly from the global to national arenas and from the scientific community to industry and to policy makers. However, this enthusiasm stands in counterpoint to the public’s deep skepticism about genetically modified foods. Drawing ideas from the idea of performativity of expectations, this article examines the social dynamics through which the new field of plant gene editing technologies has emerged in Japan by looking into the ways in which this new field is framed, understood, and envisaged in science policy documents and how the promises made in these documents serve to attract the interest of necessary allies, drawing resources, and forming sociotechnical networks, while also impeding the emergence of a counternarrative. This article uses varying sources to answer its research questions, including science policy texts and other types of archival records, such as meeting agendas and minutes, slides, parliamentary records, and specialized magazine articles. In addition, a series of participant observations took place at a range of meetings such as science policy working groups and public forums. The study found that even though genetically modified organisms stand as a political antecedent to gene editing, and thus could have interfered with the formation of this new field, collective frameworks grounded in epistemic nationalism facilitated the research and development of gene editing technologies, with material effects such as attracting institutional support and funding.

scholarly journals Status and prospects of gene editing and transgenic in fishes

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (01S) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. K. Barman ◽  
Kiran D. Rasal ◽  
Subhajit Mondal
Keyword(s):  
Cell Lines ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Gene Expressions ◽  
Important Species ◽  
Myostatin Gene ◽  
Functional Relationships ◽  
Gene Integration

Recent advances in high throughout DNA sequencing technologies have revolutionized for better understanding of structure-functional relationships of genes in identifying trait-associated transcriptomes and their regulated gene expressions. Subsequent breakthroughs in gene editing technologies such as zinc finger nucleases, transcriptional activator-like effect or nucleases (TALEN) and CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) determined chromosomal loci so as to understand gene functions in vivo. Such editing technologies are now being implemented in many laboratories due to an affordable cost and easiness of techniques. Targeted gene delivery and disruptions are now not only restricted to standard cell lines or stem cells, but also primary cell lines and nonmodel agriculturally important species. Progress and implications of gene integration and disruptions in food fishes like salmon, carps, etc. will be highlighted. The positive impacts on myostatin gene (negative growth hormone regulator) disruption mediated muscular growth have been documented. Transposon mediated gene integration technologies for value-additions to small indigenous aquarium fishes by expressing attractive fluorescent color genes could be the future of rainbow revolution. Issues linked with further-tuning with regards to improved efficacy and specificity, while reducing offtarget effects of gene editing tools will be addressed. There are health and environmental concerns with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). CRISPR/Cas9 mediated editing generates indels and hence supposed to be free from transgene-nontoxic and non-allergen. Scientific progress regarding to generate genetically modified carps; those could well be cultivated in a confinement and at the same time economically profitable; will be highlighted. Emphasis should be given for transfer these technologies from the laboratory to land for the development of a consumer-friendly sustainable farming system.

scholarly journals Biosafety by definition: an analysis of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority’s reasons for not classifying organisms treated with double-stranded RNA as genetically modified or new organisms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Rna Molecules ◽  
Key Terms

The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) issued a Decision that makes the use of externally applied double-stranded (ds)RNA molecules on eukaryotic cells or organisms technically out of scope of legislation on new organisms, because in its view the treatment does not create new or genetically modified organisms. dsRNA molecules can be potent gene regulators in eukaryotes, causing what is known as RNA interference. RNA-based technology holds promise for addressing complex and persistent challenges in public health, agriculture and conservation but also raises the threat of unintended consequences. The Decision rests on their conclusion that dsRNA treatments do not modify genes or other genetic material and are therefore not heritable. The EPA conclusion is not consistent with the totality of peer-reviewed research on dsRNA or industry claims. The Decision applies to nearly all eukaryotes, however, the EPA relied upon knowledge of relatively few eukaryotes and its analysis neglected known exceptions. The Decision also has not taken into account the unique eukaryotic biodiversity of the country, much of which is still to be described. The regulator has potentially created precedent-setting definitions of previously undefined or alternatively defined key terms that trigger obligations under binding international agreements, in addition to domestic legislation. Finally, by placing no restriction on the source or means of modifying the dsRNA, the EPA removed regulatory oversight that could prevent the accidental release of viral genes or genomes. This article examines the scientific evidence, conclusions and recommendations of the EPA and also presents some additional options.

scholarly journals Biosafety by definition: an analysis of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority’s reasons for not classifying organisms treated with double-stranded RNA as genetically modified or new organisms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Rna Molecules ◽  
Key Terms

The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) issued a Decision that makes the use of externally applied double-stranded (ds)RNA molecules on eukaryotic cells or organisms technically out of scope of legislation on new organisms, because in its view the treatment does not create new or genetically modified organisms. dsRNA molecules can be potent gene regulators in eukaryotes, causing what is known as RNA interference. RNA-based technology holds promise for addressing complex and persistent challenges in public health, agriculture and conservation but also raises the threat of unintended consequences. The Decision rests on their conclusion that dsRNA treatments do not modify genes or other genetic material and are therefore not heritable. The EPA conclusion is not consistent with the totality of peer-reviewed research on dsRNA or industry claims. The Decision applies to nearly all eukaryotes, however, the EPA relied upon knowledge of relatively few eukaryotes and its analysis neglected known exceptions. The Decision also has not taken into account the unique eukaryotic biodiversity of the country, much of which is still to be described. The regulator has potentially created precedent-setting definitions of previously undefined or alternatively defined key terms that trigger obligations under binding international agreements, in addition to domestic legislation. Finally, by placing no restriction on the source or means of modifying the dsRNA, the EPA removed regulatory oversight that could prevent the accidental release of viral genes or genomes. This article examines the scientific evidence, conclusions and recommendations of the EPA and also presents some additional options.

scholarly journals Biosafety considerations of open air genetic engineering. An analysis of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority’s reasons for not classifying organisms treated with double-stranded RNA as genetically modified or new organisms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Rna Molecules ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Protection Authority

The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) issued a Decision that makes the use of externally applied double-stranded (ds)RNA molecules on eukaryotic cells or organisms technically out of scope of legislation on new organisms, because in its view the treatment does not create new or genetically modified organisms. The Decision rests on the EPA’s conclusion that dsRNA is not heritable and therefore treatments using dsRNA do not modify genes or other genetic material. I found from an independent review of the literature on the topic that each of the major scientific justifications relied upon by the EPA to conclude that exposures to exogenous sources of dsRNA were out of legislative scope was based on either an inaccurate interpretation or failure to consult the research literature on all types of eukaryotes. The Decision also has not taken into account the unique eukaryotic biodiversity of the country. The safe use of RNA-based technology holds promise for addressing complex and persistent challenges in public health, agriculture and conservation. However, the EPA removed regulatory oversight that could prevent the accidental release of viral genes or genomes by failing to restrict the source or means of modifying the dsRNA.

scholarly journals Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) -Health Risks and Benefits for Animals and Citizens of Republic of Macedonia

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Živko Gacovski ◽  
Goce Cilev ◽  
Biljana Petrovska
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Or Genes ◽  
The Impact

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are organisms whose genetic modification of heritable genetic material (DNA) is a planned amendment to the unnatural way by applying modern techniques of genetic engineering, or, a gene or genes from one organism are inserted into another organism,what in nature with a natural breeding would never be created. GMOs are a source of modified laboratory food, supplements and various additives.The subject of this research paper is to see the impact of GM food as a threat or a benefit on the health of humans and animals, as well as its application in the Republic of Macedonia. Comparative analysis of scientific research in the field of modern biotechnology science using the technique of genetic engineering has been used in this paper. From the analysis of previous research, there are no official data on possible effects on human health, and animal tests have shown negative effects on their health.

scholarly journals Biosafety considerations of open air genetic engineering. An analysis of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority’s reasons for not classifying organisms treated with double-stranded RNA as genetically modified or new organisms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Rna Molecules ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Protection Authority

The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) issued a Decision that makes the use of externally applied double-stranded (ds)RNA molecules on eukaryotic cells or organisms technically out of scope of legislation on new organisms, because in its view the treatment does not create new or genetically modified organisms. The Decision rests on the EPA’s conclusion that dsRNA is not heritable and therefore treatments using dsRNA do not modify genes or other genetic material. I found from an independent review of the literature on the topic that each of the major scientific justifications relied upon by the EPA to conclude that exposures to exogenous sources of dsRNA were out of legislative scope was based on either an inaccurate interpretation or failure to consult the research literature on all types of eukaryotes. The Decision also has not taken into account the unique eukaryotic biodiversity of the country. The safe use of RNA-based technology holds promise for addressing complex and persistent challenges in public health, agriculture and conservation. However, the EPA removed regulatory oversight that could prevent the accidental release of viral genes or genomes by failing to restrict the source or means of modifying the dsRNA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document