DOCSLIB.ORG

Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology by Jason Aaron Delborne A.B. (Stanford University) 1993 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Jeffrey M. Romm, Chair Professor Jean C. Lave Professor Charis M. Thompson Professor David E. Winickoff Fall 2005 Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology Copyright 2005 by Jason Aaron Delborne Abstract Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology by Jason Aaron Delborne Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California, Berkeley Professor Jeffrey M. Romm, Chair Scientific controversies surrounding agricultural biotechnology have deep significance for the politics of food, the governance of technology, and the organization of public and private research. Debates over the ecological and human health impacts of genetically-modified crops not only reveal the high stakes of particular contested ‘facts,’ but also expose questions about the reliability of regimes of regulation and the public’s trust in the scientific community. Powerful economic, intellectual, and political institutions struggle to guide patterns of scientific inquiry that influence policies and practices for developing and deploying agricultural biotechnologies. Scholars in the social studies of science have long recognized the role of scientific dissent in the production of knowledge, but few have explored its heterogeneity as a social practice. The highly politicized field of agricultural biotechnology presents an ideal site to explore this complexity. In this context, the practice of scientific dissent becomes a window into the negotiation of social order. This dissertation focuses on three case studies of scientific controversy in agricultural biotechnology that occurred in the late 1 1990s and early 2000s: David Quist and Ignacio Chapela’s announcement that native landraces of Mexican maize had incorporated transgenic DNA fragments, presumably due to cross-pollination; John Losey and colleagues’ finding that Bt corn pollen could harm monarch butterfly larvae; and Arpad Pusztai’s announcement that rats fed GM potatoes developed physiological abnormalities. Beyond contributing to the historical record of these controversies, this dissertation makes three theoretical claims about scientific dissent. First, the diverse practices of scientific dissent emerge as part of a pathway. This pathway reflects the predominantly promotional context of agricultural biotechnology, the appearance of contrarian science as a first spark of dissent, and the myriad challenges to the credibility of contrarian science. Contrarian scientists only become dissenters when they actively respond to those challenges. Second, the metaphor of science as performance reveals the significance of constructing publics to serve as audiences to scientific controversy. Third, when dissenters engage this metaphor self-consciously, they enact performances of dissident science, a form of scientific dissent that takes on an explicitly political character and challenges conventional relationships among scientists, publics, and politics. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i List of Figures -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vi List of Tables -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii Acknowledgments -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- viii Dedication ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ xi Chapter 1 Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.1 Taking ‘The Pulse’ of Scientific Dissent--------------------------------------------- 2 1.2 Scientific Dissent as a Pathway and Performance ---------------------------------- 6 1.3 The Stakes of Scientific Controversies in Agricultural Biotechnology ---------- 9 1.4 Dissent, Democracy, and Expertise--------------------------------------------------20 1.5 Outline of Dissertation ----------------------------------------------------------------24 Chapter 2 Diving Off the Shoulders of Giants-----------------------------------------------28 2.1 Situating Scientific Dissent Theoretically ------------------------------------------29 2.2 Taking the Dive: Research Methodology -------------------------------------------46 2.3 My Own Pathway ----------------------------------------------------------------------54 PART ONE: SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES IN CONFLICT Chapter 3 Promotional Science: Workshop on Biotechnology for Horticultural Crops -----------------------------------------------------------------67 3.1 Narrative --------------------------------------------------------------------------------68 3.2 Stage Management---------------------------------------------------------------------72 i 3.3 Characters -------------------------------------------------------------------------------77 3.4 Audience --------------------------------------------------------------------------------95 3.5 Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------99 Chapter 4 ‘Neutral’ Science: Gene Flow Conference in Mexico City------------------ 101 4.1 Narrative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 102 4.2 Stage Management------------------------------------------------------------------- 109 4.3 Characters ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115 4.4 Audience ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 121 4.5 Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 124 Chapter 5 Embedded Assumptions in Promotional Science ----------------------------- 127 5.1 Global Agriculture ------------------------------------------------------------------- 128 5.2 Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133 5.3 Benefits-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141 5.4 Progress ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142 5.5 Control--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145 5.6 Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 151 Chapter 6 Case Studies of Contrarian Science--------------------------------------------- 152 6.1 Chapela Maize------------------------------------------------------------------------ 153 6.2 Losey Monarch----------------------------------------------------------------------- 170 6.3 Pusztai Potato------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183 6.4 Discussion----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 202 ii PART TWO: RESISTANCE Chapter 7 Resisting Chapela Maize--------------------------------------------------------- 212 7.1 Preface to Resistance: Transgenes and Mexican Maize in Science ----------- 212 7.2 Negotiations with Nature about publishing--------------------------------------- 214 7.3 Intimidation by Mexican officials ------------------------------------------------- 219 7.4 Challenges to Credibility------------------------------------------------------------ 226 7.5 Formal Scientific Critiques --------------------------------------------------------- 235 7.6 Replication as Resistance, and Resistance to Replication ---------------------- 251 7.7 Conditional invitation to GeneFlow conference --------------------------------- 253 7.8 Denial of tenure ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 254 7.9 Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 257 Chapter 8 Resisting Losey Monarch -------------------------------------------------------- 259 8.1 Resistance to Publication------------------------------------------------------------ 259 8.2 Disparaging Remarks---------------------------------------------------------------- 261 8.3 Attacks on Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------ 264 8.4 Attacks on Significance ------------------------------------------------------------- 268 8.5 Connecting with the ‘Technology as Progress’ Narrative ---------------------- 272 8.6 Monarch Research Symposium ---------------------------------------------------- 274 8.7 Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 279 Chapter 9 Resisting Pusztai Potato---------------------------------------------------------- 281 9.1 Pusztai Removed from the Stage, Misinformation Takes the Stage----------- 281 9.2 Enforced Silence and Suspension-------------------------------------------------- 284 9.3 Resistance in Audit’s Clothing ----------------------------------------------------- 288 iii 9.4 Lancet Publication ------------------------------------------------------------------- 291 9.5 Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 301 9.6 Conceptualizing and Mapping Resistance ---------------------------------------- 302 PART THREE: RESPONSES OF DISSENT Chapter 10 Expected Responses -----------------------------------------------------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Allegory of the Cave Painting
    ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE PAINTING Edited by Mihnea Mircan & Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei In which Celan’s time-crevasses shelter ancient organisms resisting any radiocarbon dating, forming and reforming images, zooming into the rock and zooming out of time. But are they indeed images – of bodies afloat between different planes of experience, of mushroom heads, dendrianthropes and therianthropes, of baobabs traveling thousands of miles from Africa to the Australian Kimberley; are they breath- crystals, inhaling and exhaling in the space between the mineralogical collection of the Museum and the diorama of primitive life, are they witness to and trace of the first days and nights of soul-making; are they symbioses of mitochondria and weak acids, one-celled nothings, eyes and seeds, nerves and time and rock walls. Another humanity was possible and we are what it did not become. 12 89 FIGURE 1 SYMBIOTIC ART Mihnea Mircan AND SHARED NOSTALGIA 56 Ignacio Chapela INTERVIEW Jack Pettigrew Tout s’efface, or everything fades, What do we read yet Blanchot may assist in grasping, and when we read, and which desires willing into language, what it is to grasp in the or anxieties preclude us from actually reading: paintings: a character before any signification, an act allegory here opens towards symbolic dispossessions, of production before memory, a regression groping in the figures of thought that are with their subject, bacterial darkness of the cave. Do those lines demand chronological and human colonies, eviscerated geologies and Western fixation or attribution, or do they point to a beyond or a below chrono-colonization.
    [Show full text]
  • Historiographies of Plant Breeding and Agriculture LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version
    Historiographies of Plant Breeding and Agriculture LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101334/ Version: Accepted Version Book Section: Berry, Dominic J. (2019) Historiographies of Plant Breeding and Agriculture. In: Dietrich, Michael, Borrello, Mark and Harman, Oren, (eds.) Handbook of the Historiography of Biology. Springer. ISBN 9783319901183 (In Press) Reuse Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item. [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Historiographies of Plant Breeding and Agriculture Dominic J. Berry London School of Economics There are unique opportunities that plant breeding and agriculture offer the historian of biology, and unique ways in which the historian of biology can inform the history of plant breeding and agriculture (Harwood, 2006. Phillips and Kingsland, 2015). There are also of course questions and challenges that the study of agricultural sites share with the study of other biological sites, such as those in medicine (Wilmot 2007. Woods et al. 2018), the environment (Agar and Ward 2018), and non-agricultural industries (Bud 1993). Indeed, in some instances the agricultural, medical, environmental, and biologically industrial will be one and the same. This is to say nothing of what agricultural sites share in common with histories of science beyond biology, but that is a broader discussion I can only mention in passing (Parolini 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy
    Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy Kevin C. Elliott Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University Introduction The philosophy of science has much to contribute to the formulation of public policy. Contemporary policy making draws heavily on scientific information, whether it be about the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments, the pros and cons of different economic policies, the severity of environmental problems, or the best strategies for alleviating inequality and other social problems. When science becomes relevant to public policy, however, it often becomes highly politicized, and figures on opposing sides of the political spectrum draw on opposing bodies of scientific information to support their preferred conclusions.1 One has only to look at contemporary debates over climate change, vaccines, and genetically modified foods to see how these debates over science can complicate policy making.2 When science becomes embroiled in policy debates, questions arise about who to trust and how to evaluate the quality of the available scientific evidence. For example, historians have identified a number of cases where special interest groups sought to influence policy by amplifying highly questionable scientific claims about public-health and environmental issues like tobacco smoking, climate change, and industrial pollution.3 Determining how best to respond to these efforts is a very important question that cuts across multiple
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Siege: Guidelines for Struggle in Science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 [email protected]
    Breaking the siege: guidelines for struggle in science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 http://www.bmartin.cc/ [email protected] When scientists come under attack, it is predictable that the attackers will use methods to minimise public outrage over the attack, including covering up the action, devaluing the target, reinterpreting what is happening, using official processes to give an appearance of justice, and intimidating people involved. To be effective in countering attacks, it is valuable to challenge each of these methods, namely by exposing actions, validating targets, interpreting actions as unfair, mobilising support and not relying on official channels, and standing up to intimidation. On a wider scale, science is constantly under siege from vested interests, especially governments and corporations wanting to use scientists and their findings to serve their agendas at the expense of the public interest. To challenge this system of institutionalised bias, the same sorts of methods can be used. ABSTRACT Key words: science; dissent; methods of attack; methods of resistance; vested interests Scientists and science under siege In 1969, Clyde Manwell was appointed to the second chair environmental issues?” (Wilson and Barnes 1995) — and of zoology at the University of Adelaide. By present-day less than one in five said no. Numerous environmental terminology he was an environmentalist, but at the time scientists have come under attack because of their this term was little known and taking an environmental research or speaking out about it (Kuehn 2004). On stand was uncommon for a scientist. Many senior figures some topics, such as nuclear power and fluoridation, it in government, business and universities saw such stands can be very risky for scientists to take a view contrary as highly threatening.
    [Show full text]
  • The Controversy Over Climate Change in the Public Sphere
    THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT The scientific consensus on climate change is not recognized by the public. This is due to many related factors, including the Bush administration’s science policy, the reporting of the controversy by the media, the public’s understanding of science as dissent, and the differing standards of argumentation in science and the public sphere. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was produced in part as a response to the acceptance of climate dissent by the Bush administration and achieved a rupture of the public sphere by bringing the technical issue forward for public deliberation. The rupture has been sustained by dissenters through the use of argument strategies designed to foster controversy at the expense of deliberation. This makes it incumbent upon rhetorical scholars to theorize the closure of controversy and policymakers to recognize that science will not always have the answers. INDEX WORDS: Al Gore, Argument fields, Argumentation, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate change, Climategate, Controversy, Public sphere, Technical sphere THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN B.A., The University of Wyoming, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 William Mosley-Jensen All Rights Reserved THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Thomas Lessl Roger Stahl Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that made this project possible through their unwavering support and love.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissent and Heresy in Medicine: Models, Methods, and Strategies Brian Martin*
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Social Science & Medicine 58 (2004) 713–725 Dissent and heresy in medicine: models, methods, and strategies Brian Martin* Science, Technology and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia Abstract Understandingthe dynamics of dissent and heresy in medicine can be aided by the use of suitable frameworks. The dynamics of the search for truth vary considerably dependingon whether the search is competitive or cooperative and on whether truth is assumed to be unitary or plural. Insights about dissent and heresy in medicine can be gained by making comparisons to politics and religion. To explain adherence to either orthodoxy or a challenging view, partisans use a standard set of explanations; social scientists use these plus others, especially symmetrical analyses. There is a wide array of methods by which orthodoxy maintains its domination and marginalises challengers. Finally, challengers can adopt various strategies in order to gain a hearing. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dissent; Heresy; Orthodoxy; Medical knowledge; Medical research; Strategies Introduction challenges to it, there is a tremendous variation in ideas, support, visibility and outcome. The conventional view is that the human immunode- What is the best term for referringto a challengeto ficiency virus, HIV, is responsible for AIDS. But for orthodoxy? Wolpe (1994) offers an illuminating many years, a few scientists have espoused the incom- typology of internal challenges. One type of challenge patible view that HIV is harmless and is not responsible is to ‘‘knowledge products’’ such as disease for AIDS (Duesberg, 1996; Maggiore, 1999). The issue prognoses that question current knowledge—namely, came to world attention in 2001 when South African what are considered to be facts—while operating President Thabo Mbeki invited a number of the so- within conventional assumptions about scientific meth- called HIV/AIDS dissidents to join an advisory panel.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Biotechnology Stages of Biotech
    History of Biotechnology Stages of Biotech Ancient Classical Modern Ancient Biotech Begins with early civilization Developments in ag and food production Few records exist Ancient Biotech Archeologists research Ancient carvings and sketches sources of information Classical Biotech Follows ancient Makes wide spread use of methods from ancient, especially fermentation Methods adapted to industrial production Classical Biotech Produce large quantities of food products and other materials in short amount of time Meet demands of increasing population Classical Biotech Many methods developed through classical biotech are widely used today. Modern Biotech Manipulation of genetic material within organisms Based on genetics and the use of microscopy, biochemical methods, related sciences and technologies Modern Biotech Often known as genetic engineering Roots involved the investigation of genes Ancient Biotech Not known when biotech began exactly Focused on having food and other human needs Ancient Biotech Useful plants brought from the wild, planted near caves where people lived As food was available, ability to store and preserve emerged Ancient Food preservation most likely came from unplanned events such as a fire or freeze Domestication 15,000 years ago, large animals were hard to capture People only had meat when they found a dead animal Came up with ways of capturing fish and small animals Domestication Food supplies often seasonal Winter food supplies may get quite low Domestication is seen by scientists as the beginning of biotech Domestication
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographies Biotechnology, the Life Science Industry, and the Environment
    berkeley workshop on environmental pol i tics bibliographies b 04-9 biotechnology, the life science industry, and the environment an annotated bibliography Dustin R. Mulvaney and Jennifer L. Wells institute of international studies, university of california, berkeley table of contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1 General Overview ............................................................................................................................1 Biological Frameworks: Genetic Reductionism and Epigenetics .......................................................7 The Ethics of Biotechnologies ........................................................................................................12 The Ecological Hazards of Transgenic Crops ..................................................................................16 Politics, Science and the Social Context of Regulation....................................................................20 The Life Science Industries and Agro-Industrial Dynamics ............................................................25 The University-Industrial Complex................................................................................................31 Germplasm, Genetic Resources, and Global Governance ...............................................................35 Annotated Bibliography .................................................................................................................39
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists Dissent List
    A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated April 2020. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen* Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W.
    [Show full text]
  • Sbchinn 1.Pdf
    The Prevalence and Effects of Scientific Agreement and Disagreement in Media by Sedona Chinn A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Communication) in The University of Michigan 2020 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor P. Sol Hart, Chair Professor Stuart Soroka Professor Nicholas Valentino Professor Jan Van den Bulck Sedona Chinn [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6135-6743 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my grandma, Pamela Boult. Thank you for your unending confidence in my every ambition and unconditional love. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the support of the Dow Sustainability Fellows Program, which provided much appreciated spaces for creative research and interdisciplinary connections. In particular, I would like to thank the 2017 cohort of doctoral fellows for their support, feedback, and friendship. I would also like to thank the Department of Communication and Media, the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social Research, and Rackham Graduate School for supporting this work. I truly appreciate the guidance and support of excellent advisors throughout this endeavor. Thanks to my advisors, Sol Hart and Stuart Soroka, for all of their long hours of teaching, critique, and encouragement. Know that your mentorship has shaped both how I think and has served as a model for how I Would like to act going forward in my professional life. Thanks to Nick Valentino and Jan Van den Bulck for your invaluable comments, insistence that I simplify experimental designs, and for your confidence in my Work. I truly appreciate all the ways in which your support and guidance have both improved the work presented here and my thinking as a researcher.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering
    GLOBAL ISSUES BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING GLOBAL ISSUES BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING Kathy Wilson Peacock Foreword by Charles Hagedorn, Ph.D. Professor, Environmental Microbiology, Virginia Tech GLOBAL ISSUES: BioTECHNologY AND GENETIC ENgiNeeRING Copyright © 2010 by Infobase Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information contact: Facts On File, Inc. An imprint of Infobase Publishing 132 West 31st Street New York NY 10001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Peacock, Kathy Wilson. Biotechnology and genetic engineering / Kathy Wilson Peacock; foreword by Charles Hagedorn. p.; cm. — (Global issues) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8160-7784-7 (alk. paper) 1. Biotechnology—Popular works. 2. Genetic engineering—Popular works. I. Title. II. Series: Global issues (Facts on File, Inc.) [DNLM: 1. Biotechnology. 2. Genetic Engineering. 3. Organisms, Genetically Modified—genetics. QU 450 P352b 2010] TP248.215.P43 2010 660.6—dc22 2009025794 Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755. You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com Text design by Erika K. Arroyo Illustrations by Dale Williams Composition by Mary Susan Ryan-Flynn Cover printed by Art Print, Taylor, Pa. Book printed and bound by Maple Press, York, Pa.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Critique of Leopoldina and Easac Statements on Genome Edited Plants in the Eu
    SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF LEOPOLDINA AND EASAC STATEMENTS ON GENOME EDITED PLANTS IN THE EU April 2021 This is a joint publication by the Boards of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Envi- ronmental Responsibility (ENSSER) and of Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS). Board Members ENSSER CSS Prof. Dr. Polyxeni Nicolopoulou-Stamati (Greece) Prof. Dr. Sergio Rasmann Dr. Nicolas Defarge (France) Dr. Angelika Hilbeck Dr. Hartmut Meyer (Germany) Dr. Silva Lieberherr Prof. Dr. Brian Wynne (United Kingdom) Prof. Dr. Stefan Wolf Dr. Arnaud Apoteker (France) Dr. Luigi d’Andrea Dr. Angelika Hilbeck (Switzerland) Dr. Angeliki Lysimachou (Greece) Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher (United Kingdom) Prof. Dr. András Székács (Hungary) Contributing Expert Members • Dr. Michael Antoniou, Reader in Molecular Genetics and Head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King’s College London, UK • Prof. Dr. Ignacio Chapela, Associate Professor at the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, & Management, University of California Berkeley, USA • Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, Senior Scientist & Lecturer, Institute of Integrative Biology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland • Prof. Dr. Erik Millstone, Emeritus Professor, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK • Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, biologist and molecular geneticist, Co-Director, EcoNexus, Oxford, UK European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility e.V. The purpose of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility e.V. (ENSSER) is the advancement of science and research for the protection of the environment, biological diversity and human health against negative impacts of new technologies and their prod- ucts. This especially includes the support and protection of independent and critical research to advance the scientific assessment of these potential impacts.
    [Show full text]