IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i4p1144-1165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Kuzma

Abstract

In this article, a new framework for improving risk assessments of novel genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) is developed and applied. The Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework (PRRAF) provides a set of principles and criteria for assessing and enhancing risk assessment protocols for GEOs under conditions of high uncertainty. The application of PRRAF is demonstrated using the case of a genetically engineered mosquito designed to kill its wild population and therefore decrease disease transmission. Assessments for regulatory approval of this genetically engineered insect fall short of several PPRAF criteria under the principles of humility, procedural validity, inclusion, anticipation, and reflexivity. With the emergence of GEOs designed to spread in ecosystems, such as those with gene drives, it will become increasingly important for regulatory agencies and technology developers to bolster their risk analysis methods and processes prior to field testing. PRRAF can be used as a flexible guide for doing so within a variety of institutional, regulatory, and governance contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Kuzma, 2021. "Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1144-1165, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1144-1165
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12245
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jones, Michael S. & Brown, Zachary S., 2023. "Food for thought: Assessing the consumer welfare impacts of deploying irreversible, landscape-scale biotechnologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    2. Araz Taeihagh & M Ramesh & Michael Howlett, 2021. "Assessing the regulatory challenges of emerging disruptive technologies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1009-1019, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    2. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    5. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    6. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    7. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    8. Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    9. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    10. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    11. Julie E. Shortridge & Benjamin F. Zaitchik, 2018. "Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 525-539, December.
    12. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2006. "On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 293-296, April.
    13. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Peng Ye, 2022. "Remote Sensing Approaches for Meteorological Disaster Monitoring: Recent Achievements and New Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-28, March.
    15. Denitsa Angelova & Andrea Bigano & Francesco Bosello & Shouro Dasgupta & Silvio Giove, 2023. "Assessing systemic climate change risk by country. Reflections from the use of composite indicators," Working Papers 2023: 28, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    16. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Emilia T. Skupień & Stefan Jankowski & Jacek Ryczyński, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Human Factors of Logistic Handling of Deliveries at an LNG Terminal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    17. Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.
    18. Alexander A. Ganin & Phuoc Quach & Mahesh Panwar & Zachary A. Collier & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Dayton Marchese & Igor Linkov, 2020. "Multicriteria Decision Framework for Cybersecurity Risk Assessment and Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 183-199, January.
    19. de Vries, J. Pierre, 2017. "Risk-informed interference assessment: A quantitative basis for spectrum allocation decisions," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 434-446.
    20. Raymond F. Boykin & Mardyros Kazarians & Raymond A. Freeman, 1986. "Comparative Fire Risk Study of PCB Transformers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 477-488, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1144-1165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.