Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

1. Introduction
Pages 14-28

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 14...
... The developments of the past 25 years, which involve the insertion and manipulation of genes within an organism's DNA, however, constitute a significant advance from the process of selective breeding. Four major parameter shifts from selective breeding to genetic engineering illustrate both the power of the new methods and the controversy that surrounds their application (Kreuzer and Massey, 2001)
From page 15...
... The Committee on Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms notes that this report has been prepared in the early days of those emerging techniques. Over the course of preparing this report, the committee informally surveyed several representatives from the private sector about emerging bioconfinement methods.
From page 16...
... . Schematic diagrams of physicochemical barriers -- along with examples of operating criteria designed to hold back specific life stages -- appear in two scientific biosafety guides (Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee, 1995; Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety, 1998)
From page 17...
... with biological confinement consisting of production of an all-female line of sterile fish. SCOPE OF THE REPORT This report reviews biological methods used to confine genetically engineered organisms.
From page 18...
... · What new data and knowledge are required for addressing any of these important questions? Although not a specific focus of the report, the social acceptability of bioconfinement methods is discussed in the introduction and as context for the technical analyses.
From page 19...
... The first recombinant DNA molecule was engineered by researchers led by Paul Berg at Stanford in 1972. They isolated and employed a restriction enzyme to cut DNA from two different viruses­­the bacterial virus, lambda, and the mammalian virus, SV40­­and used the enzyme ligase to paste two DNA strands together to form a hybrid circular molecule.
From page 20...
... In written testimony to that committee, Sydney Brenner of the Cambridge Laboratory for Molecular Biology warned of the dangers of having potentially dangerous materials handled by improperly trained scientists. In 1974 he proposed creating bacteria that were genetically engineered not to survive outside of the laboratory, to reduce the possibility of those organisms transferring their DNA to other organisms.
From page 21...
... In addition to requiring physical confinement, the RAC protocols listed the first systematic assessment of biological confinement, graded on a scale from EK1 to EK3. For EK1, researchers would use the standard strain of E
From page 22...
... . Henceforth, regulation would focus on the products of genetic engineering rather than on the process.
From page 23...
... , including the question of how deregulation of a crop in the United States is viewed by other nations. The possibility that crop genes or crop products not approved for human consumption could enter the food supply brought attention to other problems with existing confinement methods, such as spatially separated
From page 24...
... In September 2000, several newspapers reported that StarLink corn had been detected in Taco Bell brand taco shells sold in grocery stores. The Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a coalition of environmental groups, had sent the shells to the Iowa-based company Genetic ID for testing.
From page 25...
... . SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY OF BIOCONFINEMENT METHODS While the need for effective confinement methods for some types of GEOs has become more apparent in recent years, the majority of the bioconfinement methods discussed in this report are in development and have not been used in conjunction with commercially available GEOs.
From page 26...
... . Widespread public debate about terminator technology ensued, and objections came from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, whose members unanimously recommended banning research on terminator genes.
From page 27...
... In the future, will the response to related technologies and other reproductive methods of bioconfinement be different from the rejection of terminator technology? Are there alternative approaches to developing and characterizing bioconfinement methods that could be met with greater acceptance than terminator technology?
From page 28...
... . Public acceptance of bioconfinement methods for GEOs will depend on many of the same factors that influence the public's acceptance of genetic engineering and its products.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.