| 1. |
- Amundin, Mats, et al.
(author)
-
A proposal to use distributional models to analyse dolphin vocalisation
- 2017
-
In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals and Robots, VIHAR 2017. - 9782956202905 ; , s. 31-32
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper gives a brief introduction to the starting points of an experimental project to study dolphin communicative behaviour using distributional semantics, with methods implemented for the large scale study of human language.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(author)
-
Technology neutrality and regulation of agricultural biotechnology
- 2018
-
In: Professionals in food chains: ethics, rules and responsibility. EurSafe 2018, Vienna, Austria 13 – 16 June 2018 / edited by: Svenja Springer, Herwig Grimm. - Wageningen, Netherlands : Wageningen Academic Publishers. - 9789086863211
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Agricultural biotechnology, in particular genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is subject to regulation in many areas of the world, not least in the European Union (EU). A number of authors have argued that those regulatory processes are unfair, costly, and slow and that regulation therefore should move in the direction of increased ‘technology neutrality’. The issue is becoming more pressing, especially since new biotechnologies such as CRISPR increasingly blur the regulatory distinction between GMOs and non-GMOs. This paper offers a definition of technology neutrality, uses the EU GMO regulation as a starting point for exploring technology neutrality, and presents distinctions between variants of the call for technology neutral GMO regulation in the EU.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(author)
-
Technology Neutrality in European Regulation of GMOs
- 2022
-
In: Ethics, Policy & Environment. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2155-0085 .- 2155-0093. ; 1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objections to the current EU regulatory system on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in terms of high cost and lack of consistency, speed and scientific underpinning have prompted proposals for a more technology-neutral system. We sketch the conceptual background of the notion of ‘technology neutrality’ and propose a refined definition of the term. The proposed definition implies that technology neutrality of a regulatory system is a gradual and multidimensional feature. We use the definition to analyze two regulatory reform proposals: One proposal from the Netherlands for improving the exemption mechanism for GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC, and one from the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, outlining a new stratified risk assessment procedure. While both proposals offer some degree of improved technology neutrality in some dimensions compared to current EU regulation, in some extents and dimensions, they do not. We conclude that proposals for more technology-neutral regulation of GMOs need, first, to make explicit to what extent and in what dimensions the proposal improves neutrality and, second, to present arguments supporting that these specific improvements constitute desirable policy change against the background of objections to current policy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Alsanius, B. W., et al.
(author)
-
Reflection on reflection in action : A case study of growers conception of irrigation strategies in pot plant production
- 2009
-
In: AI & Society. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0951-5666 .- 1435-5655. ; 23:4, s. 545-558
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A case study of growers conception of irrigation strategies indicates that pot plant growers in Scandinavia base their management approaches on experientially based art. The study also indicates that there is a gap between experientially based art and available greenhouse technology. In order to standardize production and produce quality, both the grower's experience and available technology should be taken into account. In order to achieve this, the present study proposes to arrange reflection on reflection in action with a group of growers by means of the dialogue seminar method. The concept of reflection on reflection in action is novel to horticultural practice. Therefore, we suggest future inter- and multidisciplinary research within this domain.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin, Docent, 1972-, et al.
(author)
-
Consistent risk regulation? Differences in the European regulation of food crops
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Risk Research. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1366-9877 .- 1466-4461. ; 22:12, s. 1561-1570
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the EU legal system, there is a large difference between the procedures and requirements for the introduction of crops that are classified as genetically modified (GM) and crops not so classified. In order to investigate whether this regulatory divide is compatible with real risks two cases of GM crops and two cases of non-GM crops are scrutinized. It is concluded that the regulatory divide cannot be justified from the viewpoint of risk assessment, since the GM/non-GM dichotomy is not an accurate indicator of either health risk or environmental risk. Much better such indicators are available and should form the basis of a legislation aimed at preventing the introduction of crops that are harmful for human health or the environment. If the legislator has other reasons to regulate GM crops differently than conventional crops, then those reasons should be stated in the legislation and determine the types of measures that it prescribes.
|
|
| 7. |
- Zetterberg, Charlotta, 1960-, et al.
(author)
-
Time for a New EU Regulatory Framework for GM Crops?
- 2017
-
In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. - : SPRINGER. - 1187-7863 .- 1573-322X. ; 30:3, s. 325-347
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In recent years, the EU legislation on genetically modified (GM) crops has come under severe criticism. Among the arguments are that the present legislation is inconsistent, disproportionate, obsolete from a scientific point of view, and vague in terms of its scope. In this paper, the EU GM legislation (mainly the "Release Directive", 2001/18/EC) is analysed based on five proposed criteria: legal certainty, non-discrimination, proportionality, scientific adaptability, and inclusion of non-safety considerations. It is argued that the European regulatory framework does not at present satisfy the criteria of legal certainty, non-discrimination, and scientific adaptability. Two ways of reforming the present legislation toward greater accommodation of the values expressed through the proposed criteria are briefly introduced and discussed.
|
|
| 8. |
- Karlsson, Mikael, Docent, et al.
(author)
-
Ethics and biodiversity offsetting
- 2021
-
In: Conservation Biology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0888-8892 .- 1523-1739. ; 35:2, s. 578-586
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly applied tool aiming to compensate for environmental damage caused by exploitation projects. Critics, however, raise concerns over the purported effectiveness of offsetting and question the ethical underpinnings and implications of offsetting. These ethical dimensions have largely been overlooked in research, which may lead to offsetting systems that fail to respect the values intended to be safeguarded. To address these dimensions, 5 ethical objections in the scientific literature were identified: offsetting violates nature's intrinsic value; losses of nature cannot be compensated for by human interventions; too little is known to make adequate trades; offsetting impedes virtuous dispositions toward nature; and offsetting has negative justice implications. We examined these objections and arguments against them based on the ethical concepts of intrinsic and instrumental values, anthropocentrism, nonanthropocentrism, and deontological, consequentialist, and virtue-ethical paradigms. Both nonanthropocentric and anthropocentric concerns were expressed in deontological, consequential, and virtue-ethical framings. Objections mostly had a deontological or virtue-ethical basis, whereas counterarguments were based on consequential reasoning, but common ground in practice is often conceivable. Based on our findings, we formulated 10 recommendations for policy makers and 5 questions for practitioners to consider. We propose, for example, that policy makers clarify aims, legislate on no-go areas, and govern the use of multipliers. We suggest that practitioners consider, for instance, how to improve case-specific knowledge and promote learning and stakeholder engagement. We hope these recommendations and questions will encourage further discussion of the ethics of biodiversity offsets and ultimately strengthen the respect for biodiversity and human-welfare values at stake in offsetting projects.
|
|
| 9. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(author)
-
Modern Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Ethics
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1187-7863 .- 1573-322X. ; 28:5, s. 803-806
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 10. |
- Eriksson, Dennis, et al.
(author)
-
Options to Reform the European Union Legislation on GMOs : Scope and Definitions
- 2020
-
In: Trends in Biotechnology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-7799 .- 1879-3096. ; 38:3, s. 231-234
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. The first in a threepart series, this article focuses on reform options related to the scope of the legislation and the GMO definition.
|
|
