• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >European Court of Justice ruling regarding new genetic engineering methods scientifically justified: a commentary on the biased reporting about the recent ruling
【2h】

European Court of Justice ruling regarding new genetic engineering methods scientifically justified: a commentary on the biased reporting about the recent ruling

机译：欧洲法院关于新基因工程方法的裁决在科学上是合理的：对有关最近裁决的有偏见的报道的评论

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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.
机译：2018年7月，欧洲法院（案例C-528 / 16）裁定，通过定向诱变技术获得的生物应被视为2001/18号指令意义上的转基因生物（GMO）。该裁决标志着有关欧洲农业基因工程的下一轮争议。关于第一代基因工程技术的争论中，很多人都知道这个争议中的利弊。当前对新的基因工程方法的热情，声称能够兑现前一波浪的失败承诺，似乎更多地表明了对上一代基因工程失败的承认，而不是对范式的真正改变。 。法规被描述为禁止研究和使用，这实际上是不正确的，并且欧洲法院的法官被fa毁为拥护“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和法院裁决的报道。新基因工程技术的拥护者似乎认为，它们的好处是如此明显，以至于不需要提供可靠的科学证据。同时，认为科学机构正处于严重危机中的批评者的数量在增加，这不仅是由于公司和科学家明显记录在案的科学不当行为，而且是由于将世界分为那些出于以下目的而进行分类的方法：反对基因工程。在这种不可调和的对立结构中，差异落在了后面。本文是对这种单方面且有偏见的报道的回应，这种报道往往带有旋转感，缺乏新闻道德，要求记者以平衡和实际的方式报道不同的立场，而不是担任立场并成为未声明的拥护者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号