NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY | EDITORIAL: 20 Years of Bio-Lox
go.ncsu.edu/readext?387542
en Español / em Português
El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.
Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.
Português
Inglês é o idioma de controle desta página. Na medida que haja algum conflito entre o texto original em Inglês e a tradução, o Inglês prevalece.
Ao clicar no link de tradução, um serviço gratuito de tradução será ativado para converter a página para o Português. Como em qualquer tradução pela internet, a conversão não é sensivel ao contexto e pode não ocorrer a tradução para o significado orginal. O serviço de Extensão da Carolina do Norte (NC State Extension) não garante a exatidão do texto traduzido. Por favor, observe que algumas funções ou serviços podem não funcionar como esperado após a tradução.
English
English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.
Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.
Collapse ▲Nature Biotechnology 33, 1213 (2015) doi:10.1038/nbt.3438
Published online 09 December 2015
Here’s hoping that a proposed shakeup of US regulations will mean that new biotech products avoid AquaAdvantage salmon’s two-decade upstream struggle to regulatory approval.
November marked the first US approval of a genetically engineered food animal. AquaBounty Technology’s salmon, genetically engineered to constitutively express growth hormone, has had a long journey; 20 years, two months and five days to be exact, from investigational new animal drug submission to approval. It has negotiated the eddies of stakeholder deliberations and public consultations, swum in ever-decreasing circles while agencies wrangled over jurisdiction and elaborated new rules, and leapt through advisory committee hoops until finally pronounced “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon,” only to be caught in three years of citizens’ petitions and political stonewalling before its final release last month. All this suggests that the US regulatory system for biotech—otherwise known as the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology—may not be fit-for-purpose when it comes to novel biotech products that fail to fit existing categories.
This may be one reason why the US Science and Technology Policy Office (OSTP) has started to update the Coordinated Framework. OSTP is seeking feedback on (among other things) which agency has statutory authority over which new types of products, whether overlapping responsibilities among agencies need streamlining, and how well communication between the agencies and consumers, industry and other stakeholders has worked. It has already held a public meeting on the issue (p. 1221)