test su OGM favoriscono concettualmente le compagnie biotecnologiche

[alessandro gimona <ag0648@mluri.sari.ac.uk>]

Cari tutti,

filosofi dell' Universita' di Leiden hanno concluso che i test effeuati
su OGM, prima del loro rialscio, sono concettualmente inadeguati, nel
senso che l'esito finale dipende da quali problemi  vengano affrontati
dai test e quali ignorati.

In coda potete trovare il titolo di un libro a riguardo

Saluti
Alessandro Gimona

 : 24 JANUARY 2000 AT 07:00 ET US
Contact: Henk Klomp
klomp@nwo.nl
31 70 3440714
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
Licensing procedure for genetically modified organisms turns out to be
fallible
The procedure used by Dutch, European and global authorities when
granting
licenses for genetically modified organisms is a flawed one. Although
applicants are required to provide information about the dangers of the
newly developed biotechnology to man and the environment, they
themselves
decide to some extent what information is relevant. This has been
demonstrated by an analysis carried out by philosophers at Leiden
University
as part of a project funded by the NWO¹s Council for the Humanities. The

applicant ­who is naturally an interested party­ is therefore in a
position
to influence the outcome of the approval procedure by deciding that
certain
information is irrelevant to the risk assessment.
The explanatory notes accompanying the questions on the current (Dutch)
application form show that the government¹s decision whether or not to
grant
a license is based on the information provided by the applicant. It is
stated, for example, that "synthesis of all the information provided in
this
application form is intended to result in a complete analysis of the
risks."
The questions which a biotechnology company is required to answer are
phrased in general terms. For instance, applicants are asked about
differences between the modified plant species and the original species
and
whether they expect hereditary changes to be spread within the
environment.
By formulating the questions in this way, the body awarding the licenses

places the responsibility for the provision of information in the hands
of
the applicant.
The Leiden philosophers say that licenses can only be awarded in a
responsible manner if the authorities have a list of questions which are

relevant in assessing the dangers to man and the environment posed by
modified organisms. As a start, they have drawn up a definition of the
hazards posed by a modified organism, according to which a danger exists
if
"it carries an agent P which can produce an effect Q which is considered

undesirable in context R on an affected item S by means of a mechanism T
in
an environment X as a result of application Z".
By making use of these categories, the relevant questions and the
arguments
for their relevance can be listed in a systematic manner. In the case of
an
agent, for example, the following question is in order: To what extent
can
the transgene survive without the genetically modified organism? The
argument for the relevance of this question is that the transgene may
constitute a danger by being transferred to other organisms.
The relevance of questions needs to be discussed by such parties as
ecologists, molecular biologists, license applicants and the bodies
granting
the licenses. This would minimise unexpected environmental risks. In the

past, the environmental dangers associated with DDT, CFCs and some
synthetic
chemicals have mainly been discovered by alert individuals and not by
research institutes and companies. According to the philosophers, expert

discussion in such leading periodicals as Science and Nature has to a
large
extent involved artificial controversies because the matter of the
relevance
of certain research questions was hardly considered. The omission in the

bureaucratic licensing procedure is also to be found in the European
Union¹s
Directive 90/220/EEC and In the Familiarity policy pursued by OECD. The
philosophers have now passed on their findings to the Commission on
Genetic
Modification (COGEM), the body which advises on license granting in the
Netherlands.
###
The book ŒHazard Identification of Agricultural Biotechnology: Finding
Relevant Questions¹ (reviewed in Science Vol. 286, 418-419, 15 October
1999)
is available from T +31 30 273 1840, E-mail i-books@antenna.nl. Further
information: Dr. Ad van Dommelen (Houtsma en Van der Schot) T +31 20 623

9480, F +31 20 638 8771 E-mail hout.schot@inter.nl.net