Search results

The chapter analyses the re-emergence of gene editing as an object of policy attention at the European Union (EU) level. Editing the genome of plants and/or animals has been a rather controversial component of all EU policies on agricultural biotechnology since the late 1980s. The chapter examines in detail the various initiatives that have been assumed for the regulation of gene editing at the EU level. Since the first political and legislative attempts, the field has been revolutionized with the development of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which is comparatively much easier to design, produce, and use. Beyond the pure, safety-driven scientific questions, gene editing, in its contemporary form, raises a series of ethical and regulatory questions that are discussed in the context of the legal options and competences of the EU legislators. Special attention is paid to questions about the legal status of gene editing in Europe and the adequacy of the current GMO framework to deal with all the challenges associated with the latest scientific developments in the field of gene editing with a special focus on gene drive. Given the ongoing discussions regarding the ethical tenets of gene editing, the chapter investigates the question on whether there is a need to shape an EU-wide “intervention” that will address the complex and dynamic socio-ethical challenges of gene editing and puts forward a series of proposals for the framing of an inclusive framework that will be based on the need to re-enforce public trust in the EU governance of emerging technologies.

For more than 20 years, genome editing has been one of the numerous technologies developed for the study and manipulation of the genome. However, since the relatively recent appearance of the so-called precision approaches, and especially through the “CRISPR revolution,” the modification of the genome of any living beings on our planet has become possible, despite recent results showing some unexpected and undesirable effects of this technology. The objective of this chapter is to illustrate how a mobilization of the scientific community through the setting-up of an association should allow a responsible and ethical use of these technologies with considerable impacts for our society.

This study jointly examines consumer attitudes towards gene-edited (GE) food and their preferences for labelling such products. Thus, it contributes to understanding the role of educational background, objective/subjective knowledge, environmental concern and socio-demographics in the context of GE food.

An online survey was administered to two generations of young individuals (millennials and Generation Z; n = 234) from two neighbouring European Union (EU) regions (Belgium and The Netherlands), which have a stringent policy on (labelling) genetically modified (GM) food. Ordinary least squares (OLS) and ordered logit models (OLMs) were employed to identify key determinants of attitudes towards GE food and GE labelling preferences, respectively.

Attitudes towards GE food were determined by environmental concern (negative) and objective knowledge (positive). Key factors influencing preferences for GE labelling were a non-hard-scientific background, knowledge about relevant policies and a negative attitude towards GE food. Preference for applying a similar labelling policy to both GM and GE was itself linked to having low, objective EU policy-related GM food knowledge and one's nationality.

This is one of the first studies to examine consumer attitudes towards GE food products, while also addressing a lack of research on GE food labelling preferences. By highlighting the preferences of young generations for a revised policy approach, this study sheds new light on the current GE debate, notably, by promoting a deeper understanding of a group which has so far received limited attention in the discourse on the acceptance of novel plant-breeding technologies.

The biotechnology (biotech) and pharmaceutical (pharma) industries have a lot of similarities, particularly regarding their mission to provide lifesaving and life-improving drugs. However, there are some key distinctions between the two industries. It is these differences, however, that make that ideal partners and have resulted in a wave of mergers and acquisitions between the two industries.

This research paper offers an insider-outsider approach to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Based on an extensive review of the industries it offers key insights into the reasons for the multiple partnerships that have developed.

The findings demonstrate that the different stages of maturity of the business models of biotech and big pharma make them ideal partners. Both rely on the advantages of the other in their development, hence the wave on M&As between the two industries.

This article clearly shows how two firms or industries at different stages of maturity can be mutually beneficial. This has led to many acquisitions and mergers.