%0 Book %A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine %E Ables, Camilla Y. %T Soliciting Stakeholder Input for a Revision of Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL): Proceedings of a Workshop %@ 978-0-309-44708-9 %D 2016 %U https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23585/soliciting-stakeholder-input-for-a-revision-of-biosafety-in-microbiological-and-biomedical-laboratories-bmbl %> https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23585/soliciting-stakeholder-input-for-a-revision-of-biosafety-in-microbiological-and-biomedical-laboratories-bmbl %I The National Academies Press %C Washington, DC %G English %K Biology and Life Sciences %K Agriculture %P 32 %X Since its publication by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1984, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) has become the cornerstone of the practice of biosafety in the United States and in many countries around the world. The BMBL has been revised periodically over the past three decades to refine the guidance it provides based on new knowledge and experiences—allowing it to remain a relevant, valuable, and authoritative reference for the microbiological and biomedical community. Seven years after the release of the BMBL 5th Edition, NIH and CDC are considering a revision based on the comments of a broader set of stakeholders. At the request of NIH, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine conducted a virtual town hall meeting from 4 April to 20 May 2016 to allow BMBL users to share their thoughts on the BMBL in general and its individual sections and appendices. Specifically, users were asked to indicate what information they think should be added, revised, or deleted. Major themes from the virtual town hall meeting were further discussed in a workshop held on 12 May 2016 in Washington, DC. This document encapsulates the discussion of the major comments on the BMBL that were posted on the virtual town hall prior to 12 May 2016 and the various BMBL comments and issues related to biosafety that were raised during the workshop by participants who attended the meeting in Washington DC and those who listened to the live webcast. %0 Book %A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine %T Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects %@ 978-0-309-43738-7 %D 2016 %U https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects %> https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects %I The National Academies Press %C Washington, DC %G English %K Biology and Life Sciences %K Agriculture %P 606 %X Genetically engineered (GE) crops were first introduced commercially in the 1990s. After two decades of production, some groups and individuals remain critical of the technology based on their concerns about possible adverse effects on human health, the environment, and ethical considerations. At the same time, others are concerned that the technology is not reaching its potential to improve human health and the environment because of stringent regulations and reduced public funding to develop products offering more benefits to society. While the debate about these and other questions related to the genetic engineering techniques of the first 20 years goes on, emerging genetic-engineering technologies are adding new complexities to the conversation. Genetically Engineered Crops builds on previous related Academies reports published between 1987 and 2010 by undertaking a retrospective examination of the purported positive and adverse effects of GE crops and to anticipate what emerging genetic-engineering technologies hold for the future. This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.