健康和技术

1992年5月19日-22日在丹麦召开的“世界工程技术科学院理事会”上,美国科学院外交秘书James B.Wyngaarden作了一个有关“健康和技术”的报告,内容涉及封生物技术与医学和农业的关系。这项技术在美国的进展以及美国政府对待生物技术的政策等等。这篇报告对于我们如何认识生物技术以及对生物技术的产品应采取的政策有一定的参考价值。中国科学院副院长胡启恒同志参加了会议并建议翻译成中文,现推荐发表在这刊物上,供各界读者参考。     

美国国家生物工程食品信息披露标准法案评析

美国“国家生物工程食品信息披露标准”法案出台的主要目的是统一转基因食品标识立法,避免出现州各自为政、部分州与联邦对立的局面,减少州际食品生产和交易的成本。法案优先于州标识立法,它在要求“强制”的同时,也为经营者提供了多种信息披露方式。披露要求及标准则由农业部在两年内制定规章予以确定。这一法案是美国各方妥协的结果,并未影响原有的生物技术政策和管理原则。在我国,转基因技术相关立法上亦存在矛盾和冲突,转基因食品标识问题尚未有定论。美国立法妥协的艺术值得我国借鉴,各方应当认可国家发展生物技术的目标。我国转基因食品标识立法需要高层次立法的明确授权,设置更多样的标识方式,并进行充分的法律实施评估。     

“七五”攻关期间我国医药生物技术产品研究开发进展

医药生物技术做为当今生物技术的主要研究领域之一已取得了令人瞩目的成就。在美国,目前投放市场的生物技术产品绝大部分为医药产品,它们的开发具有速度快、产品数量多、疾病谱广、经济效益显著等特点。我国政府对医药生物技术的研究开发给予了高度的重视,据不完全统计,“七五”攻关期间组织了1200多人的研究队伍,投入了3500多万元的科研经费进行医药生物技术的研究开发工作。     

“粮改饲”政策实施现状与未来发展路径选择——-以黑龙江地区为例

“粮改饲”政策的提出为农业种植结构调整注入了新的动力。为了解“粮改饲”政策的实施效果，掌握“粮改饲”政策的未来发展方向，以黑龙江省为例进行分析发现，“粮改饲”政策在黑龙江省取得了初步的成效，但当前也遭遇发展瓶颈，主要表现为政策实施之初的目标并未在黑龙江省得到充分地展现，这主要与政策的贯彻落实与当地种植、养殖实际结合的不紧密相关，因此，黑龙江省“粮改饲”政策的发展应因地制宜原则，坚持市场导向，在未来结构调整中可适当考虑作物种植的多元化。     

防止转基因作物释放引发“超级杂草”产生的若干对策

转基因作物释放可能导致潜在的生态风险性,其中的一个重要方面是通过花粉的传播将某些转基因(主要是抗除草剂基因)漂入野生近缘种或近缘杂草而引发难以控制的“超级杂草”的产生。本文讨论了防止“超级杂草”产生的若干对策,包括物理隔离、转基因遗传调控、雄性不育性与无融合生殖机制的利用、将转基因定位于同当地杂草不亲和的基因组和叶绿体或线粒体基因组等。     

从文献计量角度探析粮食安全研究现状

为全面了解粮食安全领域的研究现状及研究热点,以汤森路透（Thomson Reuters）的Web of Science 引文数据库收录的“粮食安全”文献作为数据源,基于数量和关键词从作者、期刊、机构等多维度对“粮食安全”进行文献计量分析。通过信息可视化软件CiteSpace工具,绘制出“粮食安全”领域的科学知识图谱,得出“粮食安全”领域的研究热点主要集中于气候变化、转基因技术、食物营养与安全、农业可持续发展等方面,以期为粮食安全问题的深入研究提供参考。     

搭建网络信息服务平台优化生物信息资源配置——“中国生物技术信息网”建设的战略分析

为了促进生物技术信息交流、生物技术成果转化和生物技术产业信息化,由中国生物工程学会、中国科学院生命科学与生物技术局、中国科学院微生物所等单位本着优势互补、资源集成的原则共同组建的“中国生物技术信息网(ｈｔｔｐ:ｗｗｗ.ｂｉｏｔｅｃｈ.ｏｒｇ.ｃｎ)”于2003年3月2日正式开通。中国科学院副院长、中国生物工程学会理事长陈竺院士为该网站欣然题词:“跟踪生物技术信息动态促进生物技术产业发展”...     

阿根廷农业生物技术年报(2011)

阿根廷仍然是继美国和巴西之后第三大生物技术作物生产国,产量占到全球生物技术作物产量的15%。2011年5月19日,阿根廷政府批准先正达公司研发的转基因玉米MIR162可以进行生产和商业化,该产品在欧洲尚未获批,这一举措代表着阿根廷向着欧盟的“镜子政策”的反方向迈出了一步。为了找到一种承认知识产权的机制,孟山都公司制订了（在种子行业的支持下）与农民签署的私人协议。到目前为止,3 640个农民签署了协议,占到种植总面积的31.5%.     

中国畜牧业的概况

由863生物技术领域第一主題专家组发起和组织的首次转基因动物学术讨论会最近在北京召开。出席会议的有863第一主题动物基因工程育种两个专题的主要研究人员,特邀参加会议的有关专家,国家科委、农业部和中国科学院有关部门的负责人和工作人员近五十人,第一主题专家组洪孟民、朱立煌、陈受宜、许智宏和朱裕鼎出席了会议。 会议期间首先由专家组传达了宋健同志五月初在上海“生物领域战略目标汇报会”上的讲话精神。会议对国内外情况,包括我国畜牧业发展概况。农业科学研究战略、我国常规家畜育种技术的发展现状与生物技术在畜牧业上的应用前景、我国湖北白猪的育种技术和我国家畜疫病情况,以及哺乳动物和鱼类基因工程、细胞工程育种、家畜性别控制研究等方面的国外动态作了介绍。这些综述使与会人员既了解到国际上在转基因动物研究中取得的进展和碰到的问题,也了解了我国生产实际对转基因动物生产技术等新技术的要求和从事这方面研究所需要的背景知识及相关知识。 为了促进转基因动物研究在我国的迅速开展,我编辑部受863生物技术领域第一主题专家组的委托出版了这部“转基因动物专集”。     

关于我国药典重组DNA技术产品总论的思考

自1982年全球第一个生物技术药物“基因重组人胰岛素”、1989年中国批准第一个生物技术药物“重组人干扰素α1b”上市以来,生物技术药物已成为制药业中发展最快、活力最强和技术含量最高的领域。药品的规范生产与质量控制与其安全有效性密切相关,欧美药典中均设有对此类药品质量控制的总体要求。《中国药典》2010版三部已收录包括12类共计34个品种的重组DNA技术产品各论,在进一步保障药品安全、提高质量控制水平的编制指导思想下,《中国药典》2015版拟纳入对重组DNA技术产品的总体要求,本文就相关起草工作从产品涉及范畴、制造与产品检定等方面进行阐述。     

Power, progress and prevarication: local knowledge and GE papaya in Thailand

Genetically engineered (GE) papaya was developed in the 1990s to improve the livelihoods of small scale farmers in Thailand. Yet these farmers have been excluded from the discourse around its deregulation and deployment. While elite stakeholders continue to debate in Bangkok, little is known about small scale farmers' understanding of biotechnology, their perceptions of the technology and whether or not they are likely to be adopters if it became available. In this case study, I report on farmer knowledge of agricultural biotechnology and genetically engineered papaya in northeast Thailand. Forty farmers in four villages were surveyed with regard to their knowledge and perceptions of GE papaya. A qualitative grounded theory approach was employed to understand their responses, from which three themes emerged: progress, power and prevarication. From these themes, the decision-making process of farmers seems to be dominated by their existing local knowledge and their interest in progressing their economic status. The responses of small-scale Isaan farmers provide a new perspective on the debate over GE virus-resistant papaya in Thailand. Based on the results of this study, we can conclude that this small subset of Thai papaya growers perceive GE virus-resistant papaya as a compatible innovation that is likely to be adopted by Thai farmers if it becomes available.     

Biotechnology,people and markets

In assessing the likely demand for biotechnology products it is not sufficient just to look at what is happening in firms and their immediate market environment. There is no one 'market' for biotechnology products: there are differences between sectors and between countries. You have instead to look at the institutional contexts of the biotechnology product's development. This paper reviews work which has been carried out by social scientists, especially those using 'social shaping' approaches, on the development of new products based on advances in biotechnology and on the creation of markets to go with these products. It examines work on public attitudes to the exploitation of the technology, focusing especially on the issue of social inclusion and exclusion and how biotechnology might make exclusion more likely. It concludes by considering what current differences in public attitudes to the development of some biotechnology-based products might mean for the development of markets for those products in the UK.     

Biotechnology policy and achievement 1980-88

Much progress has been made in line with the spirit of Spinks, but it is inevitable that perspectives have changed since 1980. At the research level, we know that much strategic work remains to be done before the full industrial benefits of biotechnology can be secured, even though there has been a gratifying improvement in academic-industrial liaison. The industrial progress and dissemination of biotechnology has been slower than Spinks implied, but we have a clear understanding of the importance of such contributors to the climate for investment as balanced regulation, training and public perception. The international dimension is important not only for the potential benefit of research and development programmes but also to monitor progress in the U.K. with respect to our competitors. Biotechnology now finds itself in a new framework of Government policy for innovation; there are new challenges in sustaining and adding to the impetus built up by the academic and industrial communities.     

新加坡农业生物技术年报（2020）

目前,新加坡国内还没有任何植物生物技术投入商业化生产。截至2020年10月,新加坡共有43种转基因（genetically engineered,GE）植物产品获准用作食品或食品成分。新加坡遗传改良咨询委员会（Genetic Modification Advisory Committee,GMAC）最近修订了关于基因叠加事件的法规,采用“高覆盖低”的方法,对来源于先前GMAC认可的较低阶组合的高阶叠加事件组合豁免监管评估。     

Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk assessment

Forests are vital to the world's ecological, social, cultural and economic well‐being yet sustainable provision of goods and services from forests is increasingly challenged by pressures such as growing demand for wood and other forest products, land conversion and degradation, and climate change. Intensively managed, highly productive forestry incorporating the most advanced methods for tree breeding, including the application of genetic engineering (GE), has tremendous potential for producing more wood on less land. However, the deployment of GE trees in plantation forests is a controversial topic and concerns have been particularly expressed about potential harms to the environment. This paper, prepared by an international group of experts in silviculture, forest tree breeding, forest biotechnology and environmental risk assessment (ERA) that met in April 2012, examines how the ERA paradigm used for GE crop plants may be applied to GE trees for use in plantation forests. It emphasizes the importance of differentiating between ERA for confined field trials of GE trees, and ERA for unconfined or commercial‐scale releases. In the case of the latter, particular attention is paid to characteristics of forest trees that distinguish them from shorter‐lived plant species, the temporal and spatial scale of forests, and the biodiversity of the plantation forest as a receiving environment.     

Improving the politics of biotechnological innovations in food security and other sustainable development goals

The unwarranted interference of some environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) in decision-making over genetically modified (GM) crops has prompted calls for politics to be removed from the regulatory governance of these products. However, regulatory systems are inevitably political because their purpose is to decide whether the use of particular products will help or hinder the delivery of public policy objectives. ENGOs are most able to interfere in regulatory decision-making when policy objectives and decision-making criteria are vague, making the process vulnerable to disruption by organisations that have a distinct agenda. Making regulatory decision-making about GM crops and other green biotechnology more resistant to interference therefore requires better politics not the removal of politics. Better politics begins with political leadership making a case for green biotechnology in achieving food security and other sustainable development goals. Such a policy must involve making political choices and cannot be outsourced to science. Other aspects of better politics include regulatory reform to set policy aims and decision-making criteria that encourage innovation as well as control risk, and engagement with civil society that discusses the values behind attitudes to the application of green biotechnology. In short, green biotechnology for sustainable development needs better politics to counter well-organised opposition, to encourage innovation, and to build the trust of civil society for these policies. Removing politics from regulatory governance would be a gift to ENGOs that are opposed to the use of biotechnology.

     

Callus conclusion

For some years students of science and industry have been predicting the pervasive impact of biotechnology on the health care industry. Much has been discussed about the role biotechnology will play in industrial process, diagnostics, and pharmaceutical products. This review examines two branches of biotechnology which are emerging in the in-vitro diagnostics arena which are likely to bear edible fruit in the current decade—monoclonal antibodies and DNA probes.     

Development of health biotechnology in developing countries: Can private-sector players be the prime movers?

Health biotechnology has rapidly become vital in helping healthcare systems meet the needs of the poor in developing countries. This key industry also generates revenue and creates employment opportunities in these countries. To successfully develop biotechnology industries in developing nations, it is critical to understand and improve the system of health innovation, as well as the role of each innovative sector and the linkages between the sectors. Countries' science and technology capacities can be strengthened only if there are non-linear linkages and strong interrelations among players throughout the innovation process; these relationships generate and transfer knowledge related to commercialization of the innovative health products. The private sector is one of the main actors in healthcare innovation, contributing significantly to the development of health biotechnology via knowledge, expertise, resources and relationships to translate basic research and development into new commercial products and innovative processes. The role of the private sector has been increasingly recognized and emphasized by governments, agencies and international organizations. Many partnerships between the public and private sector have been established to leverage the potential of the private sector to produce more affordable healthcare products. Several developing countries that have been actively involved in health biotechnology are becoming the main players in this industry. The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of the private sector in health biotechnology development and to study its impact on health and economic growth through case studies in South Korea, India and Brazil. The paper also discussed the approaches by which the private sector can improve the health and economic status of the poor.     

Plant molecular farming: systems and products

Plant molecular farming is a new and promising industry involving plant biotechnology. In this review, we describe several diverse plant systems that have been developed to produce commercially useful proteins for pharmaceutical and industrial uses. The advantages and disadvantages of each system are discussed. The first plant-derived molecular farming products have reached the marketplace and other products are poised to join them during the next few years. We explain the rationale for using plants as biofactories. We also describe the products currently on the market, and those that appear likely to join them in the near future. Lastly, we discuss the issue of public acceptance of molecular farming products.Communicated by P.P. Kumar     

Transgene mobilization and regulatory uncertainty for non-GE fruit products of transgenic rootstocks

Genetically engineered (GE) rootstocks may offer some advantages for biotechnology applications especially in woody perennial crops such as grape or walnut. Transgrafting combines horticultural grafting practices with modern GE methods for crop improvement. Here, a non-GE conventional scion (upper stem portion) is grafted onto a transgenic GE rootstock. Thus, the scion does not contain the genetic modification present in the rootstock genome. We examined transgene presence in walnut and tomato GE rootstocks and non-GE fruit-bearing scions. Mobilization of transgene DNA, protein, and mRNA across the graft was not detected. Though transgenic siRNA mobilization was not observed in grafted tomatoes or walnut scions, transgenic siRNA signal was detected in walnut kernels. Prospective benefits from transgrafted plants include minimized risk of GE pollen flow (Lev-Yadun and Sederoff, 2001), possible use of more than one scion per approved GE rootstock which could help curb the estimated US$136 million (CropLife International, 2011) cost to bring a GE crop to international markets, as well as potential for improved consumer and market acceptance since the consumable product is not itself GE. Thus, transgrafting provides an alternative option for agricultural industries wishing to expand their biotechnology portfolio.