当前位置: X-MOL 学术Environ. Sci. Eur. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
European Court of Justice ruling regarding new genetic engineering methods scientifically justified: a commentary on the biased reporting about the recent ruling.
Environmental Sciences Europe ( IF 5.9 ) Pub Date : 2018-12-20 , DOI: 10.1186/s12302-018-0182-9
Eva Gelinsky 1, 2 , Angelika Hilbeck 3, 4
Affiliation  

In July 2018, the European Court of Justice (Case C-528/16) ruled that organisms obtained by directed mutagenesis techniques are to be regarded as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the meaning of Directive 2001/18. The ruling marked the next round of the dispute around agricultural genetic engineering in Europe. Many of the pros and cons presented in this dispute are familiar from the debate around the first generation of genetic engineering techniques. The current wave of enthusiasm for the new genetic engineering methods, with its claim to make good on the failed promises of the previous wave, seems to point more to an admission of failure of the last generation of genetic engineering than to a true change of paradigm. Regulation is being portrayed as a ban on research and use, which is factually incorrect, and the judges of the European Court of Justice are being defamed as espousing “pseudoscience”. Furthermore, this highly polarised position dominates the media reporting of the new techniques and the court’s ruling. Advocates of the new genetic engineering techniques appear to believe that their benefits are so clear that furnishing reliable scientific evidence is unnecessary. Meanwhile, critics who believe that the institution of science is in a serious crisis are on the increase not just due to the cases of obvious documented scientific misconduct by companies and scientists, but also due to the approach of dividing the world into those categorically for or against genetic engineering. In this construct of irreconcilable opposites, differentiations fall by the wayside. This article is a response to this one-sided and biased reporting, which often has the appearance of spin and lacks journalistic ethics that require journalists to report on different positions in a balanced and factual manner instead of taking positions and becoming undeclared advocates themselves.

中文翻译:

欧洲法院关于新基因工程方法的裁决具有科学合理性:对最近裁决的偏见报道的评论。

2018年7月,欧洲法院(案件C-528/16)裁定,通过定向诱变技术获得的生物体应被视为第2001/18号指令含义内的转基因生物体(GMO)。该裁决标志着欧洲围绕农业基因工程的下一轮争议。这场争论中提出的许多利弊在围绕第一代基因工程技术的争论中很常见。当前对新基因工程方法的热情浪潮,声称要兑现上一浪潮的失败承诺,似乎更多地表明了对最后一代基因工程失败的承认,而不是范式的真正改变。监管被描述为禁止研究和使用,这实际上是不正确的,欧洲法院的法官被诽谤为支持“伪科学”。此外,这种高度两极分化的立场主导了媒体对新技术的报道和法院的裁决。新基因工程技术的倡导者似乎认为,它们的好处是如此明显,以至于没有必要提供可靠的科学证据。与此同时,认为科学机构正处于严重危机的批评者正在增加,这不仅是因为公司和科学家明显记录在案的科学不当行为,还因为将世界明确划分为以下两类的方法:反对基因工程。在这种不可调和的对立结构中,差异被抛在了一边。本文是对这种片面和偏见的报道的回应,这种报道往往具有歪曲事实,缺乏新闻道德,要求记者以平衡和事实的方式报道不同的立场,而不是采取立场并成为不公开的倡导者。
更新日期:2018-12-20
down
wechat
bug