Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:19:20.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microbial Governance – The Ethical Challenge of Synthetic Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sweta Chakraborty  and
Arthur Caplan
Sweta Chakraborty
Affiliation:
Institute on Science for Gobal Policy
Arthur Caplan
Affiliation:
NYU Langone Medical Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 73 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The NIH established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) on October 7, 1974 in response to public concerns regarding the safety of manipulating genetic material through the use of recombinant DNA techniques and in 1976 issued the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research

2 Ragnar Löfstedt, “Risk versus Hazard – How to Regulate in the 21st Century”, 2(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2011), pp. 149–168.

3 Sweta Chakraborty, “The Risk Versus Hazard Debate: Reconciling Inconsistencies in Health and Safety Regulation within the UK and across the EU”, FLJS Policy Brief (2012), Oxford: Foundation for Law, Justice and Society, available on the Internet at: <http://www.fljs.org/uploads/documents/Chakraborty.pdf> (last accessed on 07 January 2013).

4 Vogel, David, The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Löfstedt, “Risk versus Hazard”, supra note 2.

6 Chakraborty, Sweta, “The Role of Communication in Promoting a European Wide Approach to Risk Based Regulation”, 3(1) European Journal for Risk Regulation (2012), pp. 112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Borraz, Olivier and Gilbert, Claude, «Quand l’Etat prend des risques» in Olivier Borraz and Virginie Guiraudon (eds.), Politiques Publiques 1. La France dans la gouvernance européenne (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po 2008), pp. 337–357.Google Scholar

8 Henry Rothstein, Olivier Borraz and Michael Huber, “Risk and the limits of governance: exploring varied patterns of risk–based governance across Europe”, Regulation and Governance (2012), doi:10.1111/j.1748–5991.2012.01153.x.

9 Graham, John, “Why Governments Need Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management”, in OECD, Risk and Regulatory Policy (Paris: OECD 2010), pp. 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Talking about quality: comments on Colin Raban's paper, Risk and regulation by Dr Henry Rothstein, available on the Internet at <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Henry-Rothstein-comment.pdf> (last accessed on 07 January 2013).

11 Slovic, Paul, “Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy”, 13(6) Risk Analysis (1993), pp. 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Arthur Caplan, “Get a grippe: lessons learned from the controversy over publication of pandemic flu research” Health Affairs Blog, 8 May 2012, available on the Internet at <http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/05/08/get-a-grippe-lessons-learned-from-the-controversy-over-publication-of-pandemic-flu-research/> (last accessed on 07 January 2013).

13 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies (2012), available on the Internet at <http://bioethics.gov/cms/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10_0.pdf>(last accessed on 07 January 2013).

14 Gutmann, Amy, “The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Guiding Principles for Emerging Technologies”, 41(4) Hastings Center Report (2011), pp. 17–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15 Kuzma, Jennifer and Tanji, Todd, “Unpacking Synthetic Biology for Oversight Policy”, 4 Regulation & Governance (2010), pp. 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Caplan, Arthur, “Synthetic Biology: Ethical and Social Challenges”, in: Emerging and Persistent Infectious Disease: Focus on the Societal and Economic Context. Institute on Science for Global Policy: Conference convened at George Mason University on July 8–11 2012, Fairfax, VA. 65–74.Google Scholar

17 National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1996).Google Scholar

18 Chakraborty, Sweta and Lofstedt, Ragnar, “Transparency Initiative by the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER): Two qualitative studies of Public Perceptions”, 3(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2012), pp. 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Morgan, Granger, Fischhoff, Baruch, Bostrom, Ann et al., Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, (New York NY:, Cambridge University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Fischhoff, Baruch and Bostrom, Ann, Risk Perception and Communication (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google ScholarPubMed

21 Lofstedt, Ragnar, Risk Management in Post Trust Societies. (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005).Google Scholar