Thygesen Peter
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), MDP 54, GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Transgenic Res. 2024 Dec;33(6):545-550. doi: 10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y. Epub 2024 Oct 24.
Whether organisms developed with the use of genome editing techniques, or food derived from such organisms, are, or should be, regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically modified (GM) food, respectively, remains a subject of debate globally. Much of the discussion has been scientific and focussed on the similar genetic outcomes of some genome editing techniques and 'conventional' or natural mutagenesis. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, have considered, or are considering, how their regulatory frameworks will deal with such organisms and products. In Australia, organisms developed with site directed nuclease 1 (SDN-1, with no added template to guide homology-directed repair) are not regulated as GMOs, pursuant to exclusions in the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The exclusion of SDN-1 organisms from regulation in Australia is sometimes misrepresented, including in scientific peer reviewed publications, as extending to all genome edited organisms. This highlights the importance for researchers, developers and other stakeholders to understand that whether genome edited organisms are, or are not, subject to regulation as GMOs in a particular jurisdiction may quintessentially be a legal question, not a scientific one.
利用基因组编辑技术培育的生物体,或源自此类生物体的食品,是否应被视为转基因生物(GMOs)或转基因(GM)食品,在全球范围内仍是一个有争议的话题。大部分讨论都是科学性的,并且聚焦于一些基因组编辑技术与“传统”或自然诱变在基因层面的相似结果。包括澳大利亚在内的许多司法管辖区都已考虑或正在考虑其监管框架将如何应对此类生物体和产品。在澳大利亚,根据2001年《基因技术条例》中的排除条款,利用定向核酸酶1培育的生物体(SDN-1,不添加引导同源定向修复的模板)不被视为转基因生物。在澳大利亚,将SDN-1生物体排除在监管之外的情况有时会被误解,包括在科学同行评审出版物中,被误解为适用于所有基因组编辑生物体。这凸显了研究人员、开发者和其他利益相关者了解以下情况的重要性:在特定司法管辖区,基因组编辑生物体是否作为转基因生物受到监管,本质上可能是一个法律问题,而非科学问题。