Comments on: Biotech’s Beasts http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/15/biotechs-beasts/ A science salon hosted by National Geographic Magazine Sat, 25 May 2013 04:21:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2-alpha By: Emily Anthes http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/15/biotechs-beasts/#comment-40259 Emily Anthes Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:21:45 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=152055#comment-40259 There is in fact a quite detailed environmental assessment involved in the approval process. The FDA has completed its draft assessment–which concludes that the modified salmon pose little risk to the environment and wild salmon populations.

You can read the full assessment here: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm

]]> By: Mike Lewinski http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/15/biotechs-beasts/#comment-40256 Mike Lewinski Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:56:29 +0000 http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/?p=152055#comment-40256 Re: “If the fish, which have been politically controversial, are approved, it means that good science can still triumph over politics.”

I assume by “science” this is referring only to human health issues, and that the FDA doesn’t have any regulatory oversight regarding the consequences of release into the wild. I imagine there’s no required Environmental Impact Statement or other assessment performed at all?

Mainly I want to make the point that “good science” is cross-disciplinary and one field vetting something as ‘safe’ doesn’t mean there aren’t unintended consequences to be found in other areas.

]]>