| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
113095
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Asia's dramatic entry on to the global biotech scene has not gone unnoticed by commentators and social scientists. Countries like China, India, South Korea and Singapore have been identified as 'emerging biotech powers'. Consequently scholars have begun examining the particularities of how biotechnologies (eg stem cell science, genetic testing and reproductive medicine) have come to be taken up and grounded in a variety of cultural, legal and socioeconomic contexts. They have also examined how governments, scientists, clinicians and others have been engaged in efforts to build up endogenous biotech sectors as a part of nation-building strategies. In this article, rather than attempting to answer questions of what makes biotechnology particularly Asian, I will instead investigate how demarcations and boundaries are mooted in global negotiations of what constitutes 'good' biotechnology. The analysis is based on a collaborative project between Chinese and European scientists and experts on the ethical governance of biomedical and biological research. I show how an underlying condition for the negotiations that took place within this collaboration was the proposition that difference matters when it comes to developing, organising, carrying out and overseeing biotechnological research in a particular country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
103485
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To address biosecurity issues, government agencies, academic institutions, and professional societies have developed policies concerning the publication of "dual-use" biomedical research-that is, research that could be readily applied to cause significant harm to the public, the environment, or national security. We conducted an e-mail survey of life science journals to determine the percentage that have a dual-use policy. Of the 155 journals that responded to our survey (response rate 39%), only 7.7% stated that they had a written dual-use policy and only 5.8% said they had experience reviewing dual-use research in the past 5 years. Among the potential predictors we investigated, the one most highly associated with a journal having a written dual-use policy was membership in the Nature Publishing Group (positive association). When considered individually, both previous experience with reviewing dual-use research and the journal's impact factor appeared to be positively associated with having a written dual-use policy, but only the former remained significant after adjusting for publishing group. Although preventing the misuse of scientific research for terrorist or criminal purposes is an important concern, few biomedical journals have dual-use review policies. Journals that are likely to review research that raises potential dual-use concerns should consider developing dual-use policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
102007
|
|
|