An official website of the United States government
The U.S. bioeconomy has been estimated to be $950 billion and growing [1]. Sustaining this growth requires a skilled workforce who can manufacture goods developed through biotechnology. Scaling the biotechnology workforce to the needed level requires the ability to measure its size. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the federal agency responsible for gathering education data in the U.S. Colleges that receive federal funding are mandated by law to report data every year to the NCES. Given the comprehensive nature of these data, we sought to determine whether it could be used to measure the number of certificates and degrees in biotechnology awarded by two-year colleges. An unexpected challenge was the requirement by the NCES data retrieval page for Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes and the inconsistent use of CIP codes by college biotechnology programs. We were able to circumvent these challenges by using data from the InnovATEBIO National Center for Biotechnology Education. InnovATEBIO data allowed us to identify two-year colleges with biotechnology programs and use those results to learn which CIP codes were being assigned. Knowing the CIP codes and their use in different states supplied the information we needed to obtain certificate and degree completion data from the NCES. These data provided insights into the changing numbers and demographics of biotech students during the past twenty years. Not only are these data important for understanding trends in biotechnology education, they are imperative for guiding the initiation, development, and sustainability of biotechnology education programs at two-year colleges.
more »
« less
Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture
This paper evaluates the U.S. regulatory review of three emerging biotechnology products according to parameters, practices, and endpoints of assessments that are important to stakeholders and publics. First, we present a summary of the literature on variables that are important to non-expert publics in governing biotech products, including ethical, social, policy process, and risk and benefit parameters. Second, we draw from our USDA-funded project results that surveyed stakeholders with subject matter expertise about their attitudes towards important risk, benefit, sustainability, and societal impact parameters for assessing novel agrifood technologies, including biotech. Third, we evaluate the regulatory assessments of three food and agricultural biotechnology case studies that have been reviewed under U.S. regulatory agencies and laws of the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, including gene-edited soybeans, beef cattle, and mustard greens. Evaluation of the regulatory review process was based on parameters identified in steps 1 and 2 which were deemed important to both publics and stakeholders. Based on this review, we then propose several policy options for U.S. federal agencies to strengthen their oversight processes to better align with a broader range of parameters to support sustainable agrifood products that rely on novel technologies. These policy options include 1) those that would not require new institutions or legal foundations (such as conducting Environmental Impact Statements and/or requiring a minimal level of safety data), 2) those that would require a novel institutional or cross-institutional framework (such as developing a publicly-available website and/or performing holistic sustainability assessments), and 3) those that would require the agencies to have additional legal authorities (such as requiring agencies to review biotech products according to a minimal set of health, environmental, and socio-economic parameters). Overall, the results of this analysis will be important for guiding policy practice and formulation in the regulatory assessment of emerging biotechnology products that challenge existing legal and institutional frameworks.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1828820
- PAR ID:
- 10549196
- Publisher / Repository:
- Frontiers
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
- Volume:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 2296-4185
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Urine diversion (UD) is a system-of-systems that involves source separation of waste to maximize recovery of valuable nutrients, including phosphorus. Recent research shows how UD systems offer valuable ecological benefits and can aid in water conservation efforts, and public perception studies suggest that UD systems are generally viewed positively by end-users and the general public. Nevertheless, adoption and implementation of this promising sustainability solution remains limited in many countries, including the United States (U.S.). In this perspective, we argue that in order to scale up adoption in the U.S., UD researchers and innovators must do more to address regulatory barriers. We draw on insights from political science research on ‘regulatory regimes’ to introduce the array of regulations that apply to UD systems, with a focus on commercial and institutional buildings. We examine regulatory regimes all along the UD system-of-systems, beginning at the point of collection and ending at the point of beneficial reuse. We then propose next steps to address current regulatory challenges that impact adoption, with an emphasis on the importance of stakeholder coordination. Throughout, we argue that law and regulation plays a critical role in shaping adoption of UD technologies because: (1) different regulatory regimes will be important at different points in the system-of-systems, (2) there may be multiple regulatory regimes that apply to a single subsystem, and (3) it is important to consider that legal and regulatory definitions of a technology may not match scientific understanding.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT The goal of this article is to offer framing for conversations about the role of measurement in informing public policy about the Internet. We review different stakeholders’ approaches to measurements and associated challenges, including the activities of U.S. government agencies. We show how taxonomies of existing harms can facilitate the search for clarity along the fraught path from identifying to measuring harms. Looking forward, we identify barriers to advancing our empirical grounding of Internet infrastructure to inform policy, societal challenges that create pressure to overcome these barriers, and steps that could facilitate measurement to support policymaking.more » « less
-
Abstract Regulatory agencies aim to protect the public by moderating risks associated with innovation, but a good regulatory regime should also promote justified public trust. After introducing the USDA 2020 SECURE Rule for regulation of biotech innovation as a case study, this essay develops a theory of justified public trust in regulation. On the theory advanced here, to be trustworthy, a regulatory regime must (1) fairly and effectively manage risk, must be (2) “science based” in the relevant sense, and must in addition be (3) truthful, (4) transparent, and (5) responsive to public input. Evaluated with these norms, the USDA SECURE Rule is shown to be deeply flawed, since it fails appropriately to manage risk, and similarly fails to satisfy other normative requirements for justified trust. The argument identifies ways in which the SECURE Rule itself might be improved, but more broadly provides a normative framework for the evaluation of trustworthy regulatory policy-making.more » « less
-
Abstract Coordination mandates are used to steer collective action between local government agencies. When higher levels of government allow agencies to choose how to work together, the organizational forms and institutional arrangements they adopt likely influences their ability to achieve mandated coordinated outcomes. How group-level interactions influence achievement of coordinated outcomes is not well understood. California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) provides opportunity to shed light on this topic. SGMA is a state-legislative mandate that requires local agencies who share groundwater basins to undertake groundwater sustainability planning. The mandate affords agencies leeway in deciding how they engage with one another so long as they meet multiple requirements for coordinated outcomes. Drawing on institutional theories of collective action and ethnographic data collected from 2018 to 2022, we employ multi-value Qualitative Comparative Analysis to examine how configurations of organizational forms and institutional arrangements adopted by agencies in eighteen groundwater basins influenced their achievement of coordinated outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of adopting collaborative institutional arrangements. Yet, the specific configuration of collaborative institutional arrangements varies depending on the type of coordinated outcomes agencies are mandated to achieve. These findings point to the need for mandates to require adoption of collaborative institutional arrangements, the specific configurations of which will be dictated by the requirements of the mandate.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1256388
