Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Biotechnology and the UN: New challenges, new failures

Nature Biotechnology volume 14, pages 831–834 (1996)Cite this article

The UN is carving itself a role in international biotechnology regulation, but to what end?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Anonymous. 1992. UNIDO Code of Conduct Biotech Forum Eur. 9: 218–221.

  2. Barton, J.H. 1992. Biodiversity at Rio. BioScience 42: 773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 1992. There may be advantages to such a sweeping definition: In theory, it provides latitude for circumscribing categories of organisms to be used in a field trial that DESERVE a government safety review. That is, case by case review could be limited to those categories that are legitimately judged to be of possible significant risk. This kind of risk-based approach (p.4,5) would be more defensible scientifically than the process- or technique-based approaches of the European Union's directive for field research (p.6), the UNIDO code of conduct (p.1), and the USDA and EPA.7

  4. Miller, H.I., Burris, R.H., Vidaver, A.K., and Wivel, N.A. 1990. Risk-based oversight of experiments in the environment. Science 250: 490–491.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller, H.I., Altman, D.W., Barton, J.H., and Huttner, S.L. 1995. Biotechnology oversight in developing countries: A risk-based algorithm. Bio/Technology 13: 955.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 1994 Biotechnology Risk Control, European Community, Luxembourg.

  7. Miller, H.I. 1995. Concepts of risk assessment: the “process versus product” controversy put to rest, in biotechnology, vol. 12, Brauer, D. (ed.) VCH, Weinheim, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Anonymous, Expert Panels Established to Follow-Up on the Convention on Biological Diversity. Report of Panel IV, (UNEP/Bio.Div/Panels/Inf. 1, 28 April 1993), United Nations, Nairobi.

  9. Anonymous 1989. Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

  10. Kennedy, D. 1994. Don't be distracted by alien cows. p. B9 in The Los Angeles Times, October 24, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Robert Wesson Fellow of scientific philosophy & public policy, Hoover Institution Consulting Professor at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305-6010

    Henry I. Miller

Authors
  1. Henry I. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, H. Biotechnology and the UN: New challenges, new failures. Nat Biotechnol 14, 831–834 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0796-831

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0796-831

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing