MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164427989 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s7-o53

Highly regulated but can’t be certified as sustainable. Responsible use principles are bridging the gap for biotech trees

2011· article· en· W2164427989 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Costanza

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationStewardship (theology)BiotechnologyTransparency (behavior)BusinessStakeholderCertified woodPolitical sciencePublic relationsBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biotech trees are some of the most heavily regulated plants in the world, yet no forest management system certifies the use of them as sustainable. The Responsible Use: Biotech Tree Principles are the first, and only, set of practices designed specifically for the long-term stewardship of biotech trees. These Principles may serve as a framework that certification systems can use when considering whether biotech trees meet their certification standards. Responsible use principles were developed to guide the long-term stewardship of biotech trees. As forest biotechnology has taken root and genetically modified trees are being field-tested for biofuels, species restoration, and disease resistance, the need for a set of global guiding principles for responsible use of these trees became apparent. Since this need was not being met by the international forestry certification schemes, the Institute of Forest Biotechnology (IFB) developed the Responsible Use: Biotech Tree Principles in a transparent, stakeholder driven process over nearly three years. A broad set of stakeholders have set aside the issues of whether biotech trees should be used and created these stewardship principles. The Principles are in recognition that responsibly used biotech trees have the potential to benefit society, economies, and the environment in ways that other trees cannot. Central to these Principles are core beliefs that: • Biotech trees should benefit people, the environment, or both • Risks and benefits of biotech trees must be assessed • Transparency is vital and stakeholders must be engaged • Social equity and indigenous rights are important and must be respected • Biotech tree use must follow regulations of the appropriate country Regulations for biotech trees are stringent in most parts of the world. From product inception in the lab, to seedlings grown by tree farmers, it can take years and cost millions of dollars – and the biotech tree may never get deregulated. Long growth cycles make gathering scientific information necessary for deregulation difficult in many countries. However, regulations vary widely in practice from one country to another. We will discuss the regulatory frameworks of biotech trees in Brazil, Chile, U.S., Canada, South Africa, China, and New Zealand. Certification systems have yet to address biotech tree use in a holistic, scientific manner. We will discuss how the top certification systems in Brazil, Chile, U.S., Canada, South Africa, China, and New Zealand address biotech trees. Along with the regulatory review of these countries, a framework will be developed that shows where regulations and certification systems overlap, diverge, or have significant gaps. This framework will be a tool to begin a dialogue with certification systems on how to best bridge these gaps using the Responsible Use: Biotech Tree Principles. People have highly disparate opinions about using biotech trees. The reality is that biotech trees are already in use today, and they will be put to use even more in the future. It is important that we engage society, assess environmental risks and benefits, and follow best practices for the stewardship of biotech trees and their products. The IFB, through the Responsible Use Initiative, will work with relevant forest certification systems to provide science-based, stakeholder driven assessments that will help meet the requirements of their own sustainable forestry mechanisms. The IFB is the only organization to address the sustainability of forest biotechnology on a global scale. The IFB has been in operation for 10 years as a non-profit organization. In December 2010 the IFB published the Responsible Use: Biotech Tree Principles. The Principles along with a comprehensive Biotech Tree Primer are available at http://www.responsibleuse.org. Learn more at IFB’s main website, http://www.forestbiotech.org.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207