FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2045199843> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2045199843 abstract "In his Editorial “Opportunity for agricultural biotechnology” (28 Apr., p. [615][1]), Richard J. Mahoney accuses the scientific community of being “missing in action” on the agricultural biotechnology public debate. Few would disagree that more needs to be heard from agricultural and food scientists in both public and private sectors. They have not been silent, however. In 1996, 11 scientific societies representing some 80,000 scientists united their efforts to articulate the scientific concerns about regulatory policy for agricultural biotechnology. The consortium decried regulation based on process rather than product and declared it “scientifically indefensible to regulate the inherited traits of plants for pest and disease resistance under statutes developed specifically for chemical pesticides applied externally to plants” ([1][2]). Process-based regulation remains the cornerstone of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy.Repeatedly, in testimonies to Congress, editorials, and letters, scientists have elaborated on the science and safety of modern biotechnology techniques. Mahoney describes the “disappointment” of industry and government biotechnology supporters at the absence of the greater scientific community in the debate, yet I see little evidence of support for the scientific issues by the biotechnology industry, or, for the most part, by government scientists who, while upholding the Food and Drug Administration's product-based approach, acceded to EPA's emphasis on process. Such divisiveness over fundamental science—indeed, outright support for such nonsense as “genes are pesticides”—has provided opportunity for the recent National Academy of Sciences' panel to call for greater regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology and to equivocate about the science. In contrast, the recent report from the House Subcommittee on Basic Research ([3][3]), under the chairmanship of Representative Nick Smith (R-MI), provides ringing endorsement of the science, warns against the hindrance of suffocating regulations, and points out that there has been no evidence to support the laundry list of fears promulgated by opponents.Science cannot answer the legitimate social and economic questions embroiled in the controversy about agricultural biotechnology, of which there are several, but it can answer the compelling health and safety questions that are the surrogates for substance in the current controversy. By speaking out, scientists from all quarters can strengthen public policy, add perspective to controversial food issues, and restore public confidence in the truly stunning achievements that science has contributed to agriculture. On the other hand, by appearing to support even greater regulation for a technology that already has more oversight than all traditional foods and plants and an unblemished track record, the biotechnology industry and policy-makers signal their mistrust of biotechnology. What more could the opponents want?1. [↵][4] Appropriate Oversight for Plants with Inherited Traits for Resistance to Pests (Institute of Food Technologists, Chicago, IL, 1996). 2. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants; Science and Regulation (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 5 April 2000). 3. [↵][5]1. N. Smith , “Seeds of opportunity: An assessment of the benefits, safety, and oversight of plant genomics and agricultural biotechnology” (Subcommittee on Basic Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 13 April 2000). # Response {#article-title-2}Nettleton properly points out that a coalition of food scientists was active in challenging certain aspects of biotechnology regulation by the EPA and had testified before Congress on the safety of the technology. However, the vast majority of potentially interested scientists has been largely silent—so that the public stage has been taken over by the constant drumbeat of skilled publicists not troubled by the uncomfortable requirements of rigorous science.Unfortunately, discussion of regulatory procedures gets buried—if recorded at all—in the Congressional Record , whereas the “frankenfood” charges of the biotechnology critics make the 6 o'clock news.As I said in my Editorial, the scientific community can and should now enter the debate fully and make a significant difference using real science—wherever it leads. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.288.5466.615 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text" @default.
• W2045199843 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2045199843 creator A5005214297 @default.
• W2045199843 date "2000-07-21" @default.
• W2045199843 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2045199843 title "Scientists Have Not Been Silent" @default.
• W2045199843 doi "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5478.392" @default.
• W2045199843 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10939948" @default.
• W2045199843 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2045199843 type Work @default.
• W2045199843 sameAs 2045199843 @default.
• W2045199843 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2045199843 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2045199843 hasAuthorship W2045199843A5005214297 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C108170787 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C118518473 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C2780367213 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConcept C95124753 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C108170787 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C118518473 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C138885662 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C144024400 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C150903083 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C17744445 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C18903297 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C2778137410 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C2780367213 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C36289849 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C41895202 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C86803240 @default.
• W2045199843 hasConceptScore W2045199843C95124753 @default.
• W2045199843 hasLocation W20451998431 @default.
• W2045199843 hasLocation W20451998432 @default.
• W2045199843 hasOpenAccess W2045199843 @default.
• W2045199843 hasPrimaryLocation W20451998431 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W1924001038 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W195741156 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W1965188173 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W1971549827 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W1982653373 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W1994214553 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2011702867 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2030582815 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2050082158 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2052776773 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2056463399 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2065775166 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2070618204 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2085238133 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2327322975 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W235439172 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2373787116 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2621386679 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W2736342633 @default.
• W2045199843 hasRelatedWork W575303059 @default.
• W2045199843 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2045199843 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2045199843 magId "2045199843" @default.
• W2045199843 workType "article" @default.