Comments on cabinet gene-splice plan.
Comments on cabinet gene-splice plan
April 15 ended the public comment period on the biotechnology policy proposed last December by a White House Cabinet Council. In brief, that proposal said that no new U.S. laws were necessary to regulate the commercialization of biotechnology; various agencies could divide responsibility according to according to
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. product uses and review products and processes on a case-by-case basis using scientific advisory boards and regulatory bodies coordinated by interagency panels (SN: 1/5/85, p. 7). Response to the proposal has been generally favorable, Bernadine Healy Dr. Bernadine Patricia Healy (b. August 4, 1944) is a cardiologist and a former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Red Cross. She is a senior writer for US News & World Report. Healy is a life-long Republican. of the Executive Office of Science and Technology Policy Congress established the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 1976 with a broad mandate to advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. (OSTP OSTP Office of Science & Technology Policy
OSTP Onboard Short Term Plan ) told a congressional hearing Congressional hearings are the principal formal method by which committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking. Whether confirmation hearings — a procedure unique to the Senate — legislative, oversight, investigative, or a last week.
The OSTP received 85 comments, the greatest number from industry or industrial and professional groups (41) and from university members (23). According to Healy, industry expressed concern about the time and cost of complying with the regulatory process, and several commentors requested that advisory committees include members of public interest groups, industry and nonscientists.
The most extensive criticism, submitted April 15, came from a public interest organization, the Environmental Policy Institute (EPI EPI
exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. ) of Washington, D.C. "We believe that this document [the biotechnology proposal] is, first of all, premature, and secondly, is inadequate and incomplete,' Jack Doyle of EPI told the hearing. The institute recommends that before any federal agency or congressional action to adopt a regulatory biotechnology framework, and before any agency approves field tests of genespliced organisms, the National Academy of Sciences should conduct a study on environmental and public health implications of genetic engineering. Such a study would be expected to take one to two years. Then, EPI says, Congress should review the Academy report for its legislative ramifications ramifications npl → Auswirkungen pl . Doyle says the current proposal reflects "an increasing sense of confused responsibility in the federal establishment.'