DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Biotechnology: Conceptualizing and Measuring US Public Concern

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding Biotechnology: Conceptualizing and Measuring US Public Concern University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2012 Understanding Biotechnology: Conceptualizing and Measuring US Public Concern Jenna Ann Lamphere [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Lamphere, Jenna Ann, "Understanding Biotechnology: Conceptualizing and Measuring US Public Concern. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1389 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Jenna Ann Lamphere entitled "Understanding Biotechnology: Conceptualizing and Measuring US Public Concern." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Sociology. Stephanie Bohon, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Robert Jones, Jon Shefner Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Understanding Biotechnology: Conceptualizing and Measuring US Public Concern A Thesis Presented for the Masters of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Jenna Ann Lamphere December 2012 Copyright © 2012 by Jenna A. Lamphere All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Gerald and Judene Lamphere, for their continuous support for my studies. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The guidance of my thesis committee has been integral to this work. I must thank Stephanie A. Bohon and Robert Emmet Jones for co-chairing my committee and Jon Shefner. Without them, this work would not have been possible. iv ABSTRACT Biotechnology has had a short but rather conflict-ridden history. The technology was commercialized in 1995 and since has become a volatile topic for international debate. Arguably, the United States is the biggest supporter of this technology. The United States conducted the first study using recombinant DNA, grows more biotech crops than any other country, and houses the vast majority of the largest biotech corporations. Proponents frequently claim that biotech crops are a way to improve crop production, lower food prices, decrease the need for petrochemical inputs, and alleviate international food security problems. Others see them as accelerating the loss of traditional agricultural techniques, raising the costs of agricultural production, increasing inequalities, and posing significant environmental and human health risks. The European Union has been more hesitant than the United States to adopt the use of biotechnology, which has resulted in open, international conflict. Given the novelty of and gross conflict over this technology, deeper analyses are needed before many of these concerns can be alleviated or substantiated. Examining public concern can provide a rich description of the issues surrounding biotechnology. Since the emergence of biotechnology, the European Union, via the Eurobarometer, has frequently administered surveys to its members to measure public concern. Conversely, the United States has failed to systematically administer surveys to measure concern over biotechnology. Instead, US studies have tended to be ad hoc, a- theoretical, and noncumulative, which has thwarted the evolution of a well-developed literature on US public concern for biotechnology. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine US public opinion data to identify the dimensions inherent in the indictors of v social concern surrounding biotechnology. Questionnaires administered between 1993 and 2010 containing at least one measure of biotech concern were collected. To identify the dimensions of concern, a thematic content analysis was conducted on the opinion questions. Public concern was measured by the percentage of people that express concern in their responses to the questions. I also examine trends in concern, as they relate to the dimensions of concern proxied by the indicators. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 The Aims of this Study ................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER II THE RISE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 8 The Birth of Biotechnology .......................................................................................... 10 Growth and Development ............................................................................................ 15 Unsettled Settlement .................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER III BIOTECH CONTROVERSIES .......................................................... 22 Conflicting Claims over Use in Food Production ....................................................... 24 Conflicting Claims over Medicinal Use ....................................................................... 26 Conflicting Claims over Human Health Effects ........................................................... 28 Conflicting Claims over Environmental Health Effects ............................................... 30 Conflicting Claims over Social Health Effects ............................................................ 32 Conflicting Claims over Regulating Biotechnology .................................................... 35 Making Sense of the Debate ......................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER IV DATA AND METHODS ...................................................................... 40 Collection of Data ........................................................................................................ 40 Developing my Framework .......................................................................................... 41 The Rationale for Modeling Dunlap and Jones’s Framework .................................... 41 Applying Dunlap and Jones’s Framework to Biotech Concern .................................. 44 Organization of Data ................................................................................................... 49 Description of Data ...................................................................................................... 56 Examining the Sources ............................................................................................ 56 Examining the Dimensions of Biotech Concern ..................................................... 59 CHAPTER V ANALYZING PUBLIC CONCERN .................................................... 69 The Model .................................................................................................................... 73 Results .......................................................................................................................... 78 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 82 What Does Concern the US Public? ............................................................................ 83 How Concerned Is the Public? .................................................................................... 85 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................. 86 References ........................................................................................................................ 91 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 105 Appendix A. Timeline for International Development of Biotechnology ................... 106 Appendix B. Description and Notes on Data Sources ............................................... 110 Appendix C. Description of Codes ............................................................................. 112 Appendix D. Questions Included by Source and Percent Concern Expressed ......... 113 Appendix E. Codebook for Dataset ............................................................................ 164 Appendix F. Description of Excel Function and List of Key Words by Facet ........... 166 Curriculum Vita ............................................................................................................ 169 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Scholarly Definitions Offered for Biotechnology ............................................... 2 Table 2.1 Descriptions of US Regulations ....................................................................... 13 Table 2.2 Descriptions of EU Regulations ....................................................................... 17 Table 3. Characteristics of the Green and Gene Revolution ............................................. 34 Table 4.1 Descriptions of Study and Number of Questions Included ............................. 42 Table 4.2 The Domain and Range of Content Specific to Biotechnology ........................ 48 Table 4.3 Descriptions of Dimensions .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Marijo G
    CURRICULUM VITAE Marijo G. Kent–First, B.A, M.S, Ph.D. CURRENT CORRESPONDING ADDRESS: BIRTH PLACE Bainbridge, GA, USA 3832 McFarlane Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: NATIONALITY American/USA *Cell: 662-341-5243 (cell) E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]+ PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS: -Training of students in Basic Sciences, Anatomy, Physiology and Genetics, Veterinary and Human Medicine and Pharmacy -Maintain animals carrying rare genetic mutation(s) for use in undergraduate research projects. -Research Focus: Reproductive genetics; embryogenesis/ oxidative stress induced genomic instability and tumorigenesis - Commercial Focus: Development of novel assays and tools for cancer diagnostics. - Breed, train & show horses across multiple disciplines Philosophy: Excellence in teaching and research is best achieved through active student/mentor relationships! “The most inspirational pioneers in science are often described as being passionate about their work with a little bit of eccentricity thrown in for good measure --- Science is fun and the process of learning should be an exciting adventure for both professor and student”! EDUCATION/DEGREES/CERTIFICATIONS POST-DOCTORAL: 2014-present Certification for Online Education and Teaching at Jackson State University Jackson State University Jackson, MS. (Ms. Tamika Morehead) 1990 - 1991 Reproductive Genetics Consultant- Clinical Embryology Bourn Hall Infertility Clinic, Bourn, Cambridge, UK (Prof. R.G. Edwards) Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and sex selection in human embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization (IVF) 1988 - 1990 Genetic Consultant - American Breeders Service Deforest, WI (Dr. R. Walton and Dr. J. Sullivan) Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis; Sex selection in bovine 1988 -1990 Associate Scientist -University of WI, Madison Dept. of Meat and Animal Science (Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Interspecific Oocytes on Demethylation of Sperm DNA
    The effect of interspecific oocytes on demethylation of sperm DNA Nathalie Beaujean*†‡, Jane E. Taylor*, Michelle McGarry*, John O. Gardner*, Ian Wilmut*, Pasqualino Loi§, Grazyna Ptak§, Cesare Galli¶, Giovanna Lazzari¶, Adrian Birdʈ, Lorraine E. Young**††, and Richard R. Meehan†‡‡ *Division of Gene Expression and Development, Roslin Institute, Roslin EH25 9PS, United Kingdom; †Department of Biomedical and Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Hugh Robson Building, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9XD, United Kingdom; §Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Teramo University, Teramo 64100, Italy; ¶Laboratorio di Tecnologie della Riproduzione, Istituto Sperimentale Italiano Lazzaro Spallanzani, CIZ srl, Via Porcellasco 7͞f, 26100 Cremona, Italy; ʈWellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology, University of Edinburgh, The King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JR, United Kingdom; **Institute of Genetics and Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom; and ‡‡Human Genome Unit, Medical Research Council, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh EH4 9XU, United Kingdom Edited by Rudolf Jaenisch, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA, and approved April 7, 2004 (received for review February 2, 2004) In contrast to mice, in sheep no genome-wide demethylation of the Materials and Methods paternal genome occurs within the first postfertilization cell cycle. All animal procedures were under strict accordance with U.K. This difference could be due either to an absence of a sheep Home Office regulations and within a project license issued demethylase activity that is present in mouse ooplasm or to an under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. increased protection of methylated cytosine residues in sheep sperm.
    [Show full text]
  • Edit Summer 2007
    60282_Edit_Summer07 2/5/07 02:01 Page 1 The University of Edinburgh INCLUDING BILLET & GENERAL COUNCIL PAPERS SUMMER 07 Zhong Nanshan honoured Zhong Nanshan, who first identified SARS, received an honorary degree at a ceremony celebrating Edinburgh’s Chinese links ALSO INSIDE Edinburgh is to play host to the first British centre for human and avian flu research, while the Reid Concert Hall Museum will house a unique clarinet collection 60282_Edit_Summer07 2/5/07 02:01 Page 2 60282_Edit_Summer07 2/5/07 09:35 Page 3 Contents 16xx Foreword Welcome to the Summer 2007 edition of Edit, and many thanks to everyone who contacted us with such positive feedback about our new design. A recent ceremony in Beijing celebrated the University’s links with China and saw Professor 18 Zhong Nanshan receiving an honorary degree; Edit takes a closer look at our connections – historical and present-day – to that country (page 14). The discovery of H5N1 on a turkey farm in Norfolk earlier this year meant avian flu once 14 20 again became headline news. Robert Tomlinson reports on plans to establish a cutting-edge centre at the University to research the virus Features (page 16). The focus of our third feature is the Shackleton 14 Past, Present and Future Bequest, an amazing collection of clarinets Developing links between China and Edinburgh. recently bequeathed to the University that will be housed in the Reid Concert Hall Museum 16 From Headline to Laboratory (page 20). Edinburgh takes lead in Britain’s fight against avian flu. Anne Borthwick 20 Art meets Science Editor The remarkable musical legacy of the paleoclimatologist Editor who championed the clarinet.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Review 2005/06 (2.77 MB PDF)
    01 The University of Edinburgh Annual Review 2005/06 www.ed.ac.uk 2005/06 Our Mission The University’s mission is the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and understanding. As a leading international centre of academic excellence, the University has as its core mission: • to sustain and develop its position as a research and teaching institution of the highest international quality and to benchmark its performance against world-class standards; • to provide an outstanding educational environment, supporting study across a broad range of academic disciplines and serving the major professions; • to produce graduates equipped for high personal and professional achievement; and • to contribute to society, promoting health, economic and cultural wellbeing. As a great civic university, Edinburgh especially values its intellectual and economic relationship with the Scottish community that forms its base and provides the foundation from which it will continue to look to the widest international horizons, enriching both itself and Scotland. 59603_EdUni_AR2006 1 11/1/07 08:14:20 “ At the heart of all that we achieve are our students and staff, and our alumni and friends, and I must thank the entire University community most warmly for the great achievements of the last year.” 59603_EdUni_AR2006 2 11/1/07 08:14:20 03 The University of Edinburgh Annual Review 2005/06 www.ed.ac.uk 2005/06 Principal’s Foreword Each year the Annual Review presents us with the of these categories. It is these solid foundations opportunity to capture as best we can a fl avour which form the basis for the confi dent, forward- of the life of the University over the previous year.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatoryapprochestoreprotest
    The Columbia SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW www.stlr.org REGULATING REPRODUCTIVE GENETICS: A REVIEW OF AMERICAN BIOETHICS COMMISSIONS AND COMPARISON TO THE BRITISH HUMAN FERTILISATION AND ∗ EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY Margaret Foster Riley with Richard A. Merrill** Many people are now advocating expanded government regulation of research and clinical use of reproductive technologies. Although many of these technologies have been in use or anticipated for more than twenty-five years, and a number of bioethics commissions have considered regulation of them, efforts to develop broad national regulation have largely failed. This article examines the role that government institutions can play and have played in designing regulation of assisted reproduction and reproductive technologies. We review the history of national commissions as proponents and architects of regulation and explore how their structure, mission, and political placement have influenced their success or failure. We then compare the experience of the United States to that of Great Britain which established the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in 1990 and consider whether the HFEA might be a model for future regulation in the United States. We conclude that bioethics commissions can play an important role in formulating policy but they cannot create necessary political consensus if that consensus is lacking. Moreover, while the United States can glean important lessons from the British experience, the two countries’ political, legal, and medical cultures differ in ways that suggest importation of the British model would be difficult and perhaps unwise. I. INTRODUCTION Many lawyers, political scientists, and bioethicists now advocate expanded government regulation of research and clinical use of reproductive technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetics Society News
    JULY 2016 | ISSUE 75 GENETICS SOCIETY NEWS In this issue The Genetics Society News is edited by Manuela Marescotti and items for future • Medal awarded issues can be sent to the editor, by email to • Meetings [email protected]. • Student and Travel Reports The Newsletter is published twice a year, with copy dates of July and January. Cover image: Coming of Age: The Legacy of Dolly at 20 Interview with Professor Sir Ian Wilmut. See page 19 A WORD FROM THE EDITOR A word from the editor Welcome to Issue 75 Welcome to a new issue of our could lead to a world populated newsletter. by “photocopies” of few perfect I would like to point out the people; till now, after studying interesting interview granted genetics for almost the past 20 by Professor Sir Ian Wilmut to years, I learned the real and Dr Kay Boulton and Dr Doug less catastrophic meaning of Vernimmen on the occasion of “cloning”, but, more importantly, the 20th anniversary of the birth the implications in different of Dolly the sheep. Who would fields. have thought that such a mild and Also you will find a big number gentle animal, as a sheep could of reports authored by scientists revolutionise the scientific world? that have been supported by our Her Finn Dorset and Blackface Society, to form themselves, or ‘parents’ could never have dreamt new generations of geneticists or of such great things. to progress in their research. It is funny to think for me, how Read on and enjoy. this achievement changed shape Best wishes, in my mind since 1998 when I was Manuela Marescotti just a teen-ager, believing that it Professor Sir Ian Wilmut discusses the 20th anniversary of the birth of Dolly the sheep.
    [Show full text]
  • The Current and Future Legal Status of Cloning
    CLONING HUMAN BEINGS The Current and Future Legal Status of Cloning Commissioned Paper by Lori B. Andrews, J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law CONTENTS Preface F-3 Executive Summary F-4 A. Potential State Restrictions on Cloning F-4 B. Constitutional Concerns F-5 1. Reach of the Commerce Clause F-5 2. Right to Scientific Inquiry F-6 3. Right to Make Reproductive Decisions F-6 C. Parenthood Issues F-7 The Goals of Cloning Research F-8 A. How Is Cloning Performed? F-8 B. What Are the Uses for Cloning Technology in Animals? F-9 C. What Are the Proposed Uses for Cloning Research in Humans? F-10 1. Disease Research and Treatment F-10 2. Reproductive Technology F-11 3. Organ and Tissue Reserve F-12 The Potential Impacts of Cloning F-13 A. Problems in Application to Humans F-13 B. Potential Psychological Impacts of Cloning Whole Individuals F-15 C. Potential Social Impacts of Cloning F-16 Existing Laws that Could Restrict Cloning F-18 A. State Statutes Governing Research on Embryos F-18 B. The Reach of Laws Governing In Vitro Fertilization and Assisted Reproductive Technology F-22 Proposed Federal and State Statutes Regarding Cloning F-23 A. Federal Action F-24 B. Alabama F-24 C. California F-25 D. Florida F-25 E. Illinois F-25 F. Maryland F-25 G. Missouri F-26 H. New Jersey F-26 I. New York F-26 J. Oregon F-27 K. South Carolina F-27 L. West Virginia F-27 The Federal Role in Regulating Cloning F-27 Is There a Right of Scientific Inquiry? F-36 The Right to Make Reproductive Decisions F-37 F-1 Constitutional Limits to Cloning F-40 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Please Esteemed Panel of Researchers
    The Biomedical and Life Sciences Collection • Regularly expanded, constantly updated • Already contains over 700 presentations • Growing monthly to over 1,000 talks “This is an outstanding Seminar style presentations collection. Alongside journals and books no self-respecting library in institutions hosting by leading world experts research in biomedicine and the life sciences should be without access to these talks.” When you want them, Professor Roger Kornberg, Nobel Laureate, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA as often as you want them “I commend Henry Stewart Talks for the novel and • For research scientists, graduate • Look and feel of face-to-face extremely useful complement to teaching and research.” students and the most committed seminars that preserve each Professor Sir Aaron Klug OM FRS, Nobel Laureate, The Medical senior undergraduates speaker’s personality and Research Council, University of approach Cambridge, UK • Talks specially commissioned “This collection of talks is a and organized into • A must have resource for all seminar fest; assembled by an extremely eminent group of comprehensive series that cover researchers in the biomedical editors, the world class speakers deliver insightful talks illustrated both the fundamentals and the and life sciences whether in with slides of the highest latest advances academic institutions or standards. Hundreds of hours of thought provoking presentations industry on biomedicine and life sciences. • Simple format – animated slides It is an impressive achievement!” with accompanying narration, Professor Herman Waldmann FRS, • Available online to view University of Oxford, UK synchronized for easy listening alone or with colleagues “Our staff here at GSK/Research Triangle Park wishes to convey its congratulations to your colleagues at Henry Stewart for this first-rate collection of talks from such an To access your free trial please esteemed panel of researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • No More Cloning Around Like Many Stem Cell Pioneers, Ian Wilmut, the Creator of Dolly the Sheep, Has Jumped to an Alternative Approach
    INSIGHTS ■ ■ ■ ■ STEM CELLS No More Cloning Around Like many stem cell pioneers, Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly the sheep, has jumped to an alternative approach. Is this the beginning of the end for embryonic cloning? BY SALLY LEHRMAN itting by the window of a posh coastal hotel in Half Moon Bay, S Calif., wearing a baby-blue sweater and khakis, Ian Wilmut doesn’t project the image of a scientist who pulled off one of the most dramatic experiments in modern biology. When he and his collaborators unveiled Dolly the cloned sheep in 1997, they ignited the embryonic stem cell research fi eld, struck awe in the public and set off a panic about the imminent cloning of humans. “Dolly was a big surprise to everyone,” recalls stem cell biologist Thom- as Zwaka of the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at the Baylor College of Medicine. Cloned frogs had refused to grow past the tadpole stage, and a seeming success in mice had proved to be a fake. According to scientific consensus back then, cloning IAN WILMUT adult mammals by the method Wilmut SHIFT CHANGE: A pioneer in somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), or cloning—a way to used was biologically impossible. create embryonic stem cells—he now focuses on induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). As Dolly matured, the cloning technol- HYBRID SOLUTION: To get around the egg-supply problem, Wilmut proposed inserting ogy that created her—called somatic cell human DNA into animal oocytes. Recently approved in England, such chimeric unions have nuclear transfer (SCNT)—grew into a rich fueled political debate in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory 2016/17 the Royal Society of Edinburgh
    cover_cover2013 19/04/2016 16:52 Page 1 The Royal Society of Edinburgh T h e R o Directory 2016/17 y a l S o c i e t y o f E d i n b u r g h D i r e c t o r y 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Limited, Dorchester, DT1 1HD ISSN 1476-4334 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH DIRECTORY 2016/2017 PUBLISHED BY THE RSE SCOTLAND FOUNDATION ISSN 1476-4334 The Royal Society of Edinburgh 22-26 George Street Edinburgh EH2 2PQ Telephone : 0131 240 5000 Fax : 0131 240 5024 email: [email protected] web: www.royalsoced.org.uk Scottish Charity No. SC 000470 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Limited CONTENTS THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH .....................................................3 COUNCIL OF THE SOCIETY ..............................................................5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ..................................................................6 THE RSE SCOTLAND FOUNDATION ..................................................7 THE RSE SCOTLAND SCIO ................................................................8 RSE STAFF ........................................................................................9 LAWS OF THE SOCIETY (revised October 2014) ..............................13 STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL ..........................................27 SECTIONAL COMMITTEES AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ............37 DEATHS REPORTED 26 March 2014 - 06 April 2016 .....................................................43 FELLOWS ELECTED March 2015 ...................................................................................45
    [Show full text]
  • Keith H. Campbell (1954–2012) Creator of Dolly, the First Mammal Cloned from an Adult Body Cell
    OBITUARY COMMENT Keith H. Campbell (1954–2012) Creator of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from an adult body cell. eith Campbell was the inspiration company PPL Therapeutics, which was to become head of embryology at PPL behind Dolly the sheep, the first collaborating with the Roslin Institute, was Therapeutics, where he led work on cloning mammal to be cloned from an using the sheep cells for experiments on pigs. In 1999, he became professor of animal Kadult body cell. He died on 5 October at drug development. development at the University of Notting- the age of 58. A few days later, the Nobel I always wonder who was most surprised ham, UK, where he continued to work on committee recognized the importance when, after being transferred into a ewe, one nuclear reprogramming and cloning tech- of the field by awarding the 2012 medi- of the embryos derived from the nucleus of niques. (PPL Therapeutics was sold when cine prize to John Gurdon and Shinya it ran into financial problems in 2003, Yamanaka for their achievements in largely because of the difficulty of using reprogramming cells. animal cloning to develop pharmaceuti- In 1995, Campbell — then at the cal products.) Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, UK Despite the tremendous media stir MURDO MACLEOD — conceived of a method to generate a prompted by Dolly’s birth, animal clon- pair of cloned lambs, Morag and Megan, ing has never really come of age as a from a cell taken from a sheep embryo. commercially useful biotechnology. In his opinion, these were “the first ani- This is mainly because, in most species, mals produced from differentiated cells epigenetic marks (experience-depend- because these cells had differentiated ent molecular alterations that alter how in culture”.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Project Report
    Final project report ‘Towards Dolly: Edinburgh, Roslin and the Birth of Modern Genetics’ ‘The Making of Dolly: Science, Politics and Ethics’ Funded by the Wellcome Trust’s Research Resources scheme April 2012 – May 2016 1 Contents ‹ Page 2: Contents and project overview ‹ Page 3: The collections ‹ Page 4: Preservation and conservation ‹ Page 5: Public engagement ‹ Page 6: Academic and student engagement ‹ Page 7: Working with the science community ‹ Page 8: Associated projects ‹ Pages 9-10: Additional projects ‹ Page 11: Conclusions and acknowledgements ‹ Pages 12-35: Appendices Project Overview This report covers the work undertaken as part of two Wellcome Trust projects based around animal genetics collections at Edinburgh University Library Special Collections: ‘Towards Dolly: Edinburgh, Roslin and the Birth of Modern Genetics’ (April 2012- February 2014; January-May 2016), £135,607 (096694/Z/11/Z) ‘The Making of Dolly: Science, Politics and Ethics’ (October 2013 – December 2015), £101,191 (100731/Z/12/Z) The staff employed on these projects were Clare Button, Project Archivist (2012-2016) and Kristy Davis, Rare Book Cataloguer (2012-2014). Out of the work of these projects, additional funding was also secured for the following: ‘Scoping Beyond Dolly’ (July 2012), £10,000 (099447/Z/12/Z) ‘Science on a Plate: natural history through glass slides 1870-1930’ (October 2014-April 2015), £17,466 (105088/Z/14/Z) ‘Untangling the roots of animal genetics in Edinburgh, 1899-1939’ (forthcoming, June-November 2016), £26,261 (200428/Z/15/Z) 2 The Collections The collections which make up the projects encompass archives, rare books, objects, glass slides and artwork, and date from the 15th century to the present day.
    [Show full text]