|
"There is, in the end, the letting go..." |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Headline: State board adopts biotechnology rules Publish Date: 05/22/1992 By Marya Hornbacher Staff Reporter In a move sure to upset many University researchers, the Environmental Quality Board on Thursday unanimously adopted rules concerning genetically engineered organisms. The rules, which must be approved by the state Legislature before they take effect, require an environmental review and a permit before engineered organisms are released into the environment. Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis) urged the board to pass the proposed rules as written, rather than delay the decision any longer. Kahn has supported stricter state regulation of genetic engineering since 1989, when the Legislature told the board to monitor this newly developed science. Bowing to one of several arguments against the new rules, the board amended them Thursday to exempt veterinary as well as medical research from the permit process. "These rules should not be viewed as good for all time or as flawless," cautioned James Payne, chairman of the advisory committee to the board "They deal with a fast-growing technology." Somewhat more lenient than earlier versions, this set of rules acknowledges that other agencies may have authority over the board on certain projects. In addition, the rules do not supersede Minnesota's trade secret laws, which allow some companies to claim exemptions from portions of the permit process. Stricter rules have met with resistance from some University researchers and biotechnology companies since discussion began last year. Opponents of the rules say existing federal regulations are sufficient to safeguard the public and the environment when genetically engineered organisms are released. They argue that such limits may hinder genetic engineering research in Minnesota and push biotechnology industries to other states. "Minnesota is out of the ordinary on this," said Richard Jones, dean of the College of Agriculture. "Although we appreciate the concern, we're worried about having our state operate with one hand tied behind its back," Jones said. But others say that neither researchers nor technological progress will be limited by the new rules. "The claim that this is going to wreck research is hogwash," said Philip Regal, a professor of ecology, evolution and behavior. "A lot of businesses will fight the rules, and hire lawyers to get rid of them," he said. "But they tell you over a beer that they can live with them. |
|