Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of the risk-handling procedures for gene technology applications in medical and plant science

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we analyse how the risks associated with research on transgenic plants are regulated in Sweden. The paper outlines the way in which pilot projects in the plant sciences are overseen in Sweden, and discusses the international and national background to the current regulatory system. The historical, and hitherto unexplored, reasons for the evolution of current administrative and legislative procedures in plant science are of particular interest. Specifically, we discuss similarities and differences in the regulation of medicine and plant science, and we examine the tendency towards dichotomizing risk — focusing on social/ethical risks in medicine and biological risks in plant science. The context of this article is the Synpraxia research project, an inter-disciplinary program combining expertise in sciences and the humanities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen, G.E. & Baker, J.W. (2001) Biology. Scientific Process and Social Issues. Fitzgerald Science Press, Inc, Bethesda, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Deutsch, E. (1998) The Nuremberg Code: The Proceedings in the Medical Case, the Ten Principles of Nuremberg and the Lasting Effects of the Nuremberg Code, in: Tröhler, U. & Reiter-Theil, S. eds. in cooperation with Herynch, E. Ethics Codes in Medicine. Foundations and achievements of codification since 1947. Aldershot, Ashgate: 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pascal. A. & Sprumont, D. (1998:91) The ‘Nuremberg Code’: Rules of Public International Law, in: Tröhler, U. & Reiter-Treil, S. in cooperation with Herych, E. ed. Ethics Codes in Medicine. Foundations and achievements of codification since 1947. Ashgate, Aldershot: 84–96.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Winslade, W.J. & Krause, T.L. (1998) The Nursemberg Code Turns Fifty, in: Tröhler, U. & Reiter-Treil, S. in cooperation with Herych, E. ed. Ethics Codes in Medicine. Foundations and achievements of codification since 1947. Ashgate, Aldershot: 140–162.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Svalastog, A.L. (2004) Sammanhangets betydelse och kontexternas dynamik. Om riskhantering av genmodifierade växter i Sverige, in Nordlund C. ed. Livsföreställningar. Kultur, samhälle och biovetenskap. Kungl. Skytteanska Samfundet, Umeå: 107–130.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., von Bergmann-Winberg, M.-L., Bridgman, E., Durant, J., Einsiedel, E., Fjästad, B., Gaskell, G., Grabner, P., Hieber, P., Jelsöe, E., Lassen, J., Marouda-Chatjoulis, A., Nielsen, T.V., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Seifert, F., Smink, C., Twardowski, T., Kamara, M.W. (2002) Promise, problems and proxies: twenty-five years of debate and regulations in Europé, in: Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. eds., Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 21–94.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Durant, J., Bauer, M.W. & Gaskell, G. eds. (1998) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere. A European Sourcebook. Science Museum, London.

  8. Gaskell, G. & Bauer, M.W. eds. (2001) Biotechnology 1996–2000, the years of controversy. Science Museum, London.

  9. Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. eds. (2002) Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  10. Olofsson, A. (2002) Waves of Controversy. Gene Technology in Dagens Nyheter 1973–96. Doctoral thesis, Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Nr. 29, Umeå.

  11. Öhman, S. (2002) Public Perceptions of Gene Technology. On the Edge of Risk Society? Doctoral thesis, Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Nr. 30, Umeå.

  12. Fjästad, B., Olofsson A. & Öhman, S. (2003) Svenskarna och gentekniken. Rapport från 2002 års Eurobarometer om bioteknik. Institutionen för samhällsvetenskap, Mitthögskolan, Östersund (in Swedish).

  13. Nielsen, T.V, Jeslöe, E. & Öhman, S. (2002) Traditional blue and modern green resistance, in Bauer, M.W. & Gaskell, G. ed Biotechnology. The Making of a Blobal Controvercy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 179–202.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bauer, M.W. & Bondfadelli, H. (2002) Controversy, media coverage and public knowledge, in: Bauer, M.W. & Gaskell, G. eds. Biotechnology. The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 149–175.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Religious Studies, University of Umeå, SE-901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Anna Lydia Svalastog

  2. Umeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant Physiology, University of Umeå, SE-901 87, Umeeå, Sweden

    Petter Gustafsson & Stefan Jansson

Authors
  1. Anna Lydia Svalastog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petter Gustafsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Jansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Lydia Svalastog.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Svalastog, A.L., Gustafsson, P. & Jansson, S. Comparative analysis of the risk-handling procedures for gene technology applications in medical and plant science. SCI ENG ETHICS 12, 465–479 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0045-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0045-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation