Literature DB >> 21975253

The bucket and the searchlight: formulating and testing risk hypotheses about the weediness and invasiveness potential of transgenic crops.

Alan Raybould1.   

Abstract

The bucket and the searchlight are metaphors for opposing theories of the growth of scientific knowledge. The bucket theory proposes that knowledge is gained by observing the world without preconceptions, and that knowledge emerges from the accumulation of observations that support a hypothesis. There are many problems with this theory, the most serious of which is that it does not appear to offer a means to distinguish between the many hypotheses that could explain a particular set of observations. The searchlight theory proposes that preconceptions are unavoidable and that knowledge advances through the improvement of our preconceptions - our hypotheses - by continuous criticism and revision. A hypothesis is a searchlight that illuminates observations that test the hypothesis and reveal its flaws, and knowledge thereby increases through the elimination of false hypotheses. Research into the risks posed by the cultivation of transgenic crops often appears to apply the bucket theory; many data are produced, but knowledge of risk is not advanced. Application of the searchlight theory, whereby risk assessments test hypotheses that transgenic crops will not be harmful, seems to offer a better way to characterise risk. The effectiveness of an environmental risk assessment should not be measured by the size of the bucket of observations on a transgenic crop, but by the power of the risk hypothesis searchlights to clarify the risks that may arise from cultivation of that crop. These points are illustrated by examples of hypotheses that could be tested to assess the risks from transgenic crops and their hybrids becoming weeds or invading non-agricultural habitats. © ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2011.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21975253     DOI: 10.1051/ebr/2011101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res        ISSN: 1635-7922


  6 in total

1.  Towards a more open debate about values in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology.

Authors:  Yann Devos; Olivier Sanvido; Joyce Tait; Alan Raybould
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Using problem formulation to clarify the meaning of weight of evidence and biological relevance in environmental risk assessments for genetically modified crops.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Karen Holt; Ian Kimber
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.074

Review 3.  Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants.

Authors:  Gregory S Ladics; Andrew Bartholomaeus; Phil Bregitzer; Nancy G Doerrer; Alan Gray; Thomas Holzhauser; Mark Jordan; Paul Keese; Esther Kok; Phil Macdonald; Wayne Parrott; Laura Privalle; Alan Raybould; Seung Yon Rhee; Elena Rice; Jörg Romeis; Justin Vaughn; Jean-Michel Wal; Kevin Glenn
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 2.788

4.  Transportability of confined field trial data from cultivation to import countries for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops.

Authors:  Shuichi Nakai; Kana Hoshikawa; Ayako Shimono; Ryo Ohsawa
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 2.788

5.  Spread of volunteer and feral maize plants in Central Europe: recent data from Austria.

Authors:  Kathrin Pascher
Journal:  Environ Sci Eur       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 5.893

6.  Policy-Led Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops: Testing for Increased Risk Rather Than Profiling Phenotypes Leads to Predictable and Transparent Decision-Making.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Phil Macdonald
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2018-04-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.