Marie Ancelin , Vitor A.P. Martins dos Santos , John P. Morrissey , Michael J. O’Donohue , Merja Penttilä , James C. Philp
{"title":"解决生物技术中的语义歧义:来自欧洲研究基础设施IBISBA的建议","authors":"Marie Ancelin , Vitor A.P. Martins dos Santos , John P. Morrissey , Michael J. O’Donohue , Merja Penttilä , James C. Philp","doi":"10.1016/j.nbt.2025.04.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Driven by numerous scientific discoveries in biology in the second half of the last century, biotechnology is now set to play an important role as a driver for advanced manufacturing, leveraging the power of living organisms to produce a range of goods and services. Considering this prospect, it is vital that terminology surrounding biotechnology is sufficiently clear to provide a basis for efficient regulation and public buy-in. Despite the apparent clarity of the term biotechnology, its definition is the subject of a longstanding debate and liberal interpretations. Likewise, other more recent terms such as biomanufacturing, synthetic biology and engineering biology also lack consensual definitions despite their use in both scientific and secular circles. Additionally, new terms such as precision fermentation and cellular agriculture, recently introduced in the framework of business-to-business exchanges, appear to call upon imaginaries rather than scientific facts. Herein, we examine the lexical complexity of the biotechnology field and argue that, for the sake of efficient policymaking, it is vital to harmonise the definitions of some core terms, including biotechnology, biomanufacturing, engineering biology and synthetic biology. With this aim in mind, this discussion paper is intended to be useful to policymakers and science communicators, whether in the media or in professional settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19190,"journal":{"name":"New biotechnology","volume":"88 ","pages":"Pages 83-88"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing semantic ambiguity in biotechnology: Proposals from the European research infrastructure IBISBA\",\"authors\":\"Marie Ancelin , Vitor A.P. Martins dos Santos , John P. Morrissey , Michael J. O’Donohue , Merja Penttilä , James C. Philp\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nbt.2025.04.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Driven by numerous scientific discoveries in biology in the second half of the last century, biotechnology is now set to play an important role as a driver for advanced manufacturing, leveraging the power of living organisms to produce a range of goods and services. Considering this prospect, it is vital that terminology surrounding biotechnology is sufficiently clear to provide a basis for efficient regulation and public buy-in. Despite the apparent clarity of the term biotechnology, its definition is the subject of a longstanding debate and liberal interpretations. Likewise, other more recent terms such as biomanufacturing, synthetic biology and engineering biology also lack consensual definitions despite their use in both scientific and secular circles. Additionally, new terms such as precision fermentation and cellular agriculture, recently introduced in the framework of business-to-business exchanges, appear to call upon imaginaries rather than scientific facts. Herein, we examine the lexical complexity of the biotechnology field and argue that, for the sake of efficient policymaking, it is vital to harmonise the definitions of some core terms, including biotechnology, biomanufacturing, engineering biology and synthetic biology. With this aim in mind, this discussion paper is intended to be useful to policymakers and science communicators, whether in the media or in professional settings.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New biotechnology\",\"volume\":\"88 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 83-88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New biotechnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678425000470\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678425000470","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Addressing semantic ambiguity in biotechnology: Proposals from the European research infrastructure IBISBA
Driven by numerous scientific discoveries in biology in the second half of the last century, biotechnology is now set to play an important role as a driver for advanced manufacturing, leveraging the power of living organisms to produce a range of goods and services. Considering this prospect, it is vital that terminology surrounding biotechnology is sufficiently clear to provide a basis for efficient regulation and public buy-in. Despite the apparent clarity of the term biotechnology, its definition is the subject of a longstanding debate and liberal interpretations. Likewise, other more recent terms such as biomanufacturing, synthetic biology and engineering biology also lack consensual definitions despite their use in both scientific and secular circles. Additionally, new terms such as precision fermentation and cellular agriculture, recently introduced in the framework of business-to-business exchanges, appear to call upon imaginaries rather than scientific facts. Herein, we examine the lexical complexity of the biotechnology field and argue that, for the sake of efficient policymaking, it is vital to harmonise the definitions of some core terms, including biotechnology, biomanufacturing, engineering biology and synthetic biology. With this aim in mind, this discussion paper is intended to be useful to policymakers and science communicators, whether in the media or in professional settings.
期刊介绍:
New Biotechnology is the official journal of the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) and is published bimonthly. It covers both the science of biotechnology and its surrounding political, business and financial milieu. The journal publishes peer-reviewed basic research papers, authoritative reviews, feature articles and opinions in all areas of biotechnology. It reflects the full diversity of current biotechnology science, particularly those advances in research and practice that open opportunities for exploitation of knowledge, commercially or otherwise, together with news, discussion and comment on broader issues of general interest and concern. The outlook is fully international.
The scope of the journal includes the research, industrial and commercial aspects of biotechnology, in areas such as: Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals; Food and Agriculture; Biofuels; Genetic Engineering and Molecular Biology; Genomics and Synthetic Biology; Nanotechnology; Environment and Biodiversity; Biocatalysis; Bioremediation; Process engineering.