Comment on "Session V: estimating likelihood and exposure", by Zaida Lentini, Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 (2006) 193-195.

Environmental biosafety research Pub Date : 2008-04-01 Epub Date: 2008-06-13 DOI:10.1051/ebr:2008007
Franco Digiovanni, Peter G Kevan
{"title":"Comment on \"Session V: estimating likelihood and exposure\", by Zaida Lentini, Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 (2006) 193-195.","authors":"Franco Digiovanni,&nbsp;Peter G Kevan","doi":"10.1051/ebr:2008007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We comment on Zaida Lentini's summary of Session V (titled \"Estimating Likelihood and Exposure\") of the 9th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. We provide an explanation of the drawbacks of using empirical pollen dispersion models, based largely on the general representativeness of the data used to generate the empirical models. We exemplify the drawbacks by highlighting the limited data used to develop the empirical model of Gustafson (presented in the same Symposium session). We provide a discussion of the meaning of \"worst-case\" assessments for pollen dispersion, how \"worst-case\" assumptions are commonly used in environmental impact assessments and how regulators will view worst-case impact assessments differently from the regulated (biotech) community. Finally, we clarify the advantages and disadvantages of mechanistic models and explain why they are often used in preference to empirical models in environmental impact assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":87177,"journal":{"name":"Environmental biosafety research","volume":"7 2","pages":"105-8; discussion 109-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental biosafety research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/ebr:2008007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2008/6/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We comment on Zaida Lentini's summary of Session V (titled "Estimating Likelihood and Exposure") of the 9th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. We provide an explanation of the drawbacks of using empirical pollen dispersion models, based largely on the general representativeness of the data used to generate the empirical models. We exemplify the drawbacks by highlighting the limited data used to develop the empirical model of Gustafson (presented in the same Symposium session). We provide a discussion of the meaning of "worst-case" assessments for pollen dispersion, how "worst-case" assumptions are commonly used in environmental impact assessments and how regulators will view worst-case impact assessments differently from the regulated (biotech) community. Finally, we clarify the advantages and disadvantages of mechanistic models and explain why they are often used in preference to empirical models in environmental impact assessments.

对Environ的Zaida Lentini的“第五部分:估计可能性和暴露”的评论。生物安全第5(2006)193-195。
我们对Zaida Lentini在第九届转基因生物安全国际研讨会第五部分(题为“估计可能性和暴露”)的总结进行评论。我们在很大程度上基于用于生成经验模型的数据的一般代表性,提供了使用经验花粉分散模型的缺点的解释。我们通过强调用于开发Gustafson经验模型的有限数据(在同一研讨会会议上提出)来举例说明缺点。我们讨论了花粉分散的“最坏情况”评估的含义,“最坏情况”假设如何在环境影响评估中常用,以及监管机构如何看待最坏情况影响评估与受监管(生物技术)社区的不同。最后,我们澄清了机制模型的优点和缺点,并解释了为什么在环境影响评价中经常优先使用机制模型而不是经验模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信