Parallel Sessions

Conference delegates will have the option to attend any of these parallel sessions each day. More details about the parallel sessions schedule will be posted here.

Effects of Vertical Gene Flow Between GM Plants and Sexually Compatible Relatives – Dangerous Liaisons?

Gene flow between crops and their cross-compatible wild/weedy relatives is a well-documented phenomenon. Evidence indicates that 22 of the world’s 25 most important crops exchange genes with their relatives. The consequences of such vertical gene flow are variable, and can be difficult to predict. Although crops and certain wild/weedy relatives have exchanged genes for centuries, the concern with GM plants is that the acquisition of transgenes by their relatives may alter their capacity for persistence or invasiveness, affecting their abundance, and potentially resulting in impacts on other organisms, the abiotic environment, biogeochemical cycles or ecosystem services. Depending on which plant and which transgenes are involved, and on the characteristics of the receiving environment, this may enable wild/weedy relatives to go extinct, exacerbate a weed problem, or to expand and invade new habitats. Although such dramatic outcomes are rarely observed, the persistence of crop genes in populations of wild/weedy relatives has been documented, with emerging evidence for introgression. This session will therefore consider the probability and consequences of transgene flow to wild/weed relatives, and means to mitigate gene flow, focusing on various GM plants. Participants to the session will share their views and experience gained with the deliberate release of GM plants into the environment over the last three decades. This information will then be used to determine the data that are necessary to characterise risk and clarify the risks that may arise from the cultivation of GM plants.

Session Organisers: Sol Ortiz Garcia - Bio, Comision Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Geneticamente Modificados (CIBIOGEM) & Yann Devos - Bio, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Speakers:

When vertical gene flow matters
Norman Ellstrand, University of California (UC)

Assessment of consequences associated with potential gene flow from transgenic maize to landraces
Silverio Garcia Lara, Tecnológico de Monterrey
Co-author: Juan Manuel de la Fuente Martinez

Potential for gene flow from transgenic maize (Zea mays L.) to eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides L.)
Duska Stojsin, Monsanto
Co-authors: Moon-Sub Lee, Eric Anderson, Marc McPherson, Baltazar Baltazar, Michael J Horak, Juan Manuel de la Fuente Martinez, Kungsheng Wu, James H Crowley, Lane Rayburn, DK Lee

Across time and space: Transgene flow between oilseed crops and weedy relatives
Linda M Hall, University of Alberta
Co-author: Hugh J Beckie

GM gene flow in sugar beet: Regulatory experience in the United States
Subray Hegde, US Department of Agriculture's Biotechnology Regulatory Services (USDA-BRS)
Co-authors: John Turner, Sally McCammon

22 years and 22,979 trees later: Lessons from field-testing GM trees in the USA
Amy L Klocko, Oregon State University (OSU)
Co-author: Steven H Strauss

Formulating and testing hypotheses about the likelihood of GM crops and hybrids becoming harmful weeds
Alan Raybould, Syngenta Crop Protection

Types of Evidence and Efforts Necessary to Inform the Safety Assessment of Unintended Effects in GM Plants

As GM plants intended for commercialisation were developed, procedures were introduced to ensure they were as safe for food, feed and the environment as their conventional counterparts. These procedures were developed to address two types of potential changes to be considered in a GM crop safety assessment: intended and unintended. An intended change occurs as a consequence of the introduced transgene altering the crops phenotype. An unintended change could also occur as a consequence of the gene insertion, from random mutations that take place during the transformation and tissue culture process, or from pleiotrophic effects. Unintended effects might have an impact on potential agronomic performance, but they do not necessarily pose safety threats for human health, animal health or the environment. After 20 years of regulatory oversight and commercial use of GM plants, no adverse unintended effects have been discovered during regulatory reviews. Consequently, a re-evaluation of the original premise is merited. The objectives of the session are to explore the types of information that are necessary to inform the safety assessment of unintended effects in GM plants, and to explore the opportunity for revised approaches. The session will conclude with a panel discussion with subject matter experts.

Session organisers: Sarah Davis - Bio, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) & Joerg Romeis - Bio, Agroscope

Speakers:

Experience gained on the assessment of unanticipated unintended changes in GM plants
Wayne A ParrottUniversity of Georgia (UGA)

Science informing policy – A study of insertional effects and implications on Canada's approach to environmental safety
Heather Shears, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Co-author: Cindy Pearson

Unintended effects of gene insertions into plants and their impact on commercialisation as agricultural biotechnology products
Laura S PrivalleBayer

Rodent feeding trials with whole food/feed – Summarising experiences from the EU-funded projects GRACE and GTwYST
Joachim SchiemannJulius Kuhn-Institute (JKI)
Co-author: Ralf Wilhelm

The value of in planta data for the non-target risk assessment
Joerg RomeisAgroscope
Co-author: Michael Meissle

Future avenues and developments: Omics technologies as part of risk assessment strategies
Esther J KokRIKILT Wageningen University and Research (UR)

Evaluating biotech potatoes, one variety at a time
Susan CollingeJR Simplot Company
Co-authors: Jeff Habig, Tracy Rood, Muffy Koch

Biosafety Research, Risk Assessment Experiences and Capacity Building in Latin America

Latin America is a very contrasting region in terms of the use and development of GM plants. Both, Brazil and Argentina have been leaders in the growing of these plants, with Brazil being a Party to the Cartagena Protocol, while Argentina and Chile (together with the USA and Canada in the continent) have not signed the protocol and therefore are No-Parties. There are countries which currently import GMOs to be used for food and feed or processing, but do not allow local cultivation of these despite having legislation in place, while other countries have decided for a complete moratorium on the use of these materials. Also, there are instances where countries are still working on the establishment of a regulatory framework, while others that have such framework are unable to use the technology because of legal constraints such as lawsuits. Furthermore, there are wide differences in terms of capabilities for developing products of their own, therefore some countries see themselves as only recipients of this technology, while others have begun to develop their own products, not only to address national problems, but also to compete with the large transnational companies and therefore avoiding the monopolic practices. Participants to the session will share their stories concerning regional or national experience with GMOs, and will set the framework to discuss the path to be followed that may best suit the needs and expectations of such a diverse group of countries, such that the challenges of the future may be solved, at least partially, by the use of a technology that so far has proven to be safe and reliable.

Session organisers: Jaime E Padilla-Acero - Bio, AgroBio & Juan Manuel de la Fuente Martinez - Bio, Monsanto

Speakers:

Argentina’s experience on the regulated use of GM crops
Martin LemaMinistry of Agro-industry & Quilmes National University

The work of IICA and the status of Central American countries on biosafety
Pedro J RochaInter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture  (IICA)

Brazil’s experience on the regulated use of GM crops
Flavio Finardi-FilhoUniversity of Sao Paulo

CIAT GM research in Colombia to address agriculture sustainability and micronutrient malnutrition
Joe TohmeInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
Co-author: Paul Chavarriaga

An environmentally friendly GM technology to effectively decrease the use of fertilisers and herbicides in agriculture
Luis Herrera-EstrellaCentro de Investigacion y de Estudiops Avanzados
Co-author: Damar Lopez-Arredondo

The use of GM crops in Mexico: Experiences in biosafety, institutional capacity, and the effect of regulations on the evolution of national policies
Natalhie Beatriz Campos Reales PinedaComision Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Geneticamente Modificados (CIBIOGEM)
Co-author: Sol Ortiz Garcia

Biosafety regulatory systems overseeing the use of GMOs in the Latin America and the Caribbean region
Ayrton Andre Rosado HuaynasiInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)<
Co-author: Wendy Craig

ERA vs. Ecological Research – The Relevance of a Good Problem Formulation to Ensure That Gathered Data are Useful for ERA

Every deployment of a GMO can trigger hundreds of imaginable risks in the minds of stakeholders (e.g. applicants, regulators, academia, the wider public, etc.). The use of problem formulation assists the identification of significant risks to important and valued resources, and as a consequence, helps direct the generation and analysis of high-quality data relating to the identified risks. In addition, when a transparent and inclusive approach is taken with regard to problem formulation, consistent, thorough and efficient ERAs are promoted, which in turn leads to the identification of key areas for ecological research relevant to GMO use. Moreover, such an approach, when communicated to stakeholders, helps the wider understanding of how the scope of each ERA was determined and which data were key to the conclusions. The use of problem formulation therefore helps ensure that each ERA is successful and effective. In this session, it will be demonstrated how the use of problem formulation can help drive ERA and related ecological research to be more focused on significant risks.

Session organisers: Wendy Craig - Bio, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) & Monica Garcia-Alonso - Bio, Estel Consult Ltd

Speakers:

An introduction to problem formulation
Wendy CraigInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)

Regulatory use of problem formulation – GM mustard
Vibja AhujaBiotech Consortium India Limited

Taking stock of the ERA of GM higher plants
Patrick Rudelsheim, Perseus
Co-author: Greet Smets

The use of a problem formulation approach to focus the nutritional assessment of food and feed originating from a novel GM crop
Phil Brune, Syngenta Crop Protection

For GM breeding stacks, crop composition and transgene expression are predicted by the single component events
Rod Herman, Dow AgroSciences
Co-authors: Satyalinga Gampala, Brandon J Fast, Kimberly Richey, Zhifang Gao, Greg Bradfisch

The use of problem formulation in Mexico
Sol Ortiz Garcia, Comision Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Geneticamente Modificados (CIBIOGEM)

Using expert panels and problem formulation to inform risk assessments for gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives
Karen Hokanson, University of Minnesota (UM)
Co-authors: Norman C Ellstrand, Alan Raybould

Plant Genome Editing – Any Novel Features to Consider for ERA and Regulation?

New genome editing techniques (e.g., TALEN, Zinc Finger) open the gate to a so far unknown spatially and functionally precise surgery of genes to the end of a controlled mutagenesis. Moreover, even entire genes can be placed into the genome at desired loci using these techniques. At the same time decisions on whether organisms created by these developments do require legal regulation lags behind in numerous jurisdictions. The progress on genome editing may challenge both risk assessment and regulation: There is a need to balance the public’s need for food, feed and environmental safety and the costs for developers, growers, shippers and processors, without wasting resources in a proportionate way. This session will bring together developers, risk assessors and regulators to promote a knowledge-based discussion by summarising technological developments of the last years, identifying knowledge gaps, analysing scenarios for the introduction of selected edited organisms in the environment, and creating awareness about benefits and risks of the new techniques by connecting regulatory approaches, ethical aspects and decision-making.

Session organisers: Nina Duensing - Bio, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) & Detlef Bartsch - Bio, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) & Thorben Sprink - Bio, Julius Kuhn-Institute (JKI)

Speakers:

What is unique about genome editing?
Wayne A ParrottUniversity of Georgia (UGA)

ERA challenges associated with genome-edited crops from a public risk assessor perspective
Thorben SprinkJulius Kuhn-Institute (JKI)
Co-author: Ralf Wilhelm

CRISPR-Cas gene editing and similarities to conventional breeding outcomes: A product developer perspective
Maria FedorovaDuPont Pioneer

Regulatory challenges: Technology-based vs. product-based regulations and potential impact on product monitoring
Martin LemaMinistry of Agro-industry & Quilmes National University

Preparing for future biotechnology products – Perspectives on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (US-NASEM) report
Jeffrey D WoltIowa State University (ISU)

World Cafe session – Three interactive table discussions (each of 20’) on novel features to consider for plant genome editing, focusing on challenges (participants, who will be divided into three separate groups, will be switching from one Table to the other each 20’)

Cafe table 1: ERA – Novel demands?
Thorben SprinkJulius Kuhn-Institute (JKI)

Cafe table 2: Monitoring – Detection and identification of new products/traits after placing on the market
Nina Duensing, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL)

Cafe table 3: Global harmonisation of regulation
Detlef BartschFederal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL)
Co-authors: Georg Leggewie, Thorben Sprink

GMOs in Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

As the global population continues to expand, utilizing an integrated approach to pest management will be important for food security and agricultural sustainability. GM crops with resistance to insects, tolerance to herbicides, and enhanced agronomic performance can contribute as an important set of tools in a diversified integrated pest management (IPM) plan. Current developments in IPM and in insect resistance management (IRM) will be highlighted. The purpose of this symposium is to provide a venue for scientists from academia, private organizations, public research institutes, and industry to present innovative research in the development of robust IPM plans. A series of presentations will be followed by a panel discussion, highlighting advancements in the field and discussing the role of agricultural biotechnology in IPM development.

Session organisers: Jennifer Anderson - Bio, DuPont Pioneer & Michael Meissle - Bio, Agroscope

Speakers:

The principles of Integrated Pest Management – How do GM crops fit?
Michael MeissleAgroscope

The role and value of regulation of IPM programs for Bt-crops
Graham HeadMonsanto
Co-author: Samuel Martinelli

Implementing best practices to complement biotech resistance management guidelines
Timothy DennehyDuPont Pioneer

Implementing IPM for Bt-eggplant: Meeting the challenges or dreaming the impossible dream?
Anthony M SheltonCornell University
Co-authors: Joseph E Huesing, Gour Pada Das, Desiree M Hautea, Karen E Hokanson, Srinivas Parimi, Vijay Paranjape, Nicholas P Storer, Arif Hossain

Implementing IPM for bean golden mosaic virus in common bean in Brazil
Josias Correa de FariaEmbrapa Rice and Beans
Co-authors: Thiago Thiago Lívio Pessoa Oliveira de Souza, Eliane Dias Quintela

IPM and weed management for the future
Micheal DK OwenIowa State University (ISU)

Implementing IPM for cotton in Arizona and Mexico
Peter EllsworthUniversity of Arizona (UA)
Co-author: Steven E Naranjo

ERA of RNAi-based GM plants & data transportability

Session organisers: Pamela M Bachman - Bio, Monsanto & Joachim Schiemann - Bio, Julius Kuhn-Institute (JKI)

Speakers:

Safety assessment for potatoes with traits based upon RNA interference
Cathy Zhong, JR Simplot Company
Co-author: Jeffrey HabigAaron Rowland

Assessing the impact of transgenic RNAi plants on non-target organisms: Current knowledge and future directions
Xuguo Zhou, University of Kentucky (UKY)
Co-author: Blair D Siegfried

Environmental fate of an insecticidal, double-stranded RNA in two Brazilian soils
Daniella PV Braga, Monsanto
Co-authors: Marcela ES Joaquim, Marcia OMA Jose, Joshua R Fischer, Fatima Zapata, Changjian Jiang, Gustavo G Belchior, Geraldo U Berger

Research on modifying plants to produce interfering RNA: iPlanta a new EU scientific network
Jeremy Sweet, JT Environmental Consultants 
Co-author: Bruno Mezzetti

The recent tendency in the ERA of GM crops in Japan
Ryo Ohsawa, University of Tsukuba

Data transportability of non-target arthropod field data for GM traits across crops and geographies
Peter Asiimwe, Monsanto
Co-authors: Aqeel Ahmad, Adam Schapaugh, Changjian Jiang

Data transportability of confined field trials from cultivation country to import country
Shuichi Nakai, Monsanto
Co-author: Seiichiro Yamane

Evaluating the transportability of ecological risk assessment on transgenic crops to associated breeding stacks
Justin McDonald, Syngenta

ERA studies/tools

Session organisers: Adinda De Schrijver, Scientific Institute of Public Health & Michael Meissle - Bio, Agroscope 

Speakers:

Bt-rice in China – Focusing the non-target risk assessment
Yunhe LiChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Co-authors: Michael Meissle, Joerg Romeis

Biosafety aspects in the pre-commercialisation phase of developing GM sugarcane in South Africa
Sandy SnymanSouth African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI)
Co-authors: M Gouse, L Potgieter, S Siebert, Johnnie Van Den Berg

Non-pesticidal R-proteins: A case study of late blight protected potato
Cathy ZhongJR Simplot Company
Co-author: Jeff Habig

Can systematic reviews inform GMO risk assessment and risk management?
Ralf WilhelmJulius Kuhn-Institute (JKI)
Co-authors: Joachim Schiemann, Christian Kohl, GRACE team

Use of species sensitivity distributions to characterise hazard for insect control traits
Chad BoeckmanDuPont Pioneer

Interactions between stacked Bt-maize and herbivorous aphids and spider mites
Yinghua ShuSouth China Agricultural University
Co-authors: Jianwu Wang, Joerg Romeis, Michael Meissle

Characterisation of the differences between natural Bt-toxins and commercialised GMO Bt-toxins
Jonathan LathamBioscience Resource Project
Co-authors: Angelika Hilbeck, Madeleine Love

Regulatory issues & data requirements 

Session organisers: Christine Tibelius - Bio, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) & Karen Hokanson - Bio, University of Minnesota (UM)

Speakers:

Suppression gene drives for non-insect pests and conservation biology
Allison SnowOhio State University (OSU)

Draft ERA of a hypothetical gene drive Aedes aegypti for population suppression
Paulo Paes De Andrade, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande
Co-authors: Amaro de Lira Castro Neto, Marília Andreza da Silva Ferreira

Teosinte in the EU – Are there any scientific implications for the environmental risk assessment of maize maize MON810, Bt11, 1507 and GA21 for cultivation?
Yann Devos, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), GMO Unit

ERA: Does science matters?
Marlene KeeseTherapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
Co-author: Paul Keese

Refining data requirements for risk assessments of GM plants
Heidi MitchellOffice of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)
Co-authors: Brian Weir, Andrea Robold, Peter Thygesen

Transgenic Agrostis stolonifera: Gene flow, establishment and abandonment
Carol Mallory-SmithOregon State University
Co-author: Maria Zapiola

The limited value of agronomic and phenotypic characterisation for the risk assessment of GM crops intended for import in the EU
Lieselot BerthoMonsanto
Co-authors: EuropaBio ERA Working Group

Future introductions of GM microbial biocontrol agents in the EU – Is current legislation and risk assessment fit for purpose?
Boet GlandorfNational Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)
Co-authors: Jacqueline Scheepmaker, Petra Hogervorst

Gene Drive and GM Insects for Pest Control

The use of GM insects for pest control has long been under consideration, but is now moving to practical applications. The development of new molecular technologies, including gene drive systems, have led to an increase in interest and engagement around GM insects for public health, agriculture and conservation biology. This session will examine some of the recent and on-going investigations into the use of GM insects, including gene drive systems, and their potentially novel biosafety considerations, as well as providing an overview of potential applications of gene drive and more traditional GM technologies for use in pest control.

Session organisers: Anthony Shelton - Bio, Cornell University & Andrew Roberts - Bio, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Research Foundation

Speakers:

Trialing gene drives to control invasive species: The what, where and how?
Tim Harvey-Samuel, Pirbright Institute
Co-author: Luke Alphey

Biosafety for gene drive research
Paul De Barro, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

Policy and regulatory issues for use of gene drives to control insect-borne human disease and insect agricultural pests
Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI)

Problem formulation for the use of gene drive in Anopheles gambiae to control malaria transmission
Andrew Roberts, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Research Foundation

Challenges for the regulation of gene drive technology
Detlef Bartsch, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL)
Co-authors: Werner Schenkel, Tom J de Jong, Michael Bonsal

ERA of GMOs with engineered gene drives – Lessons from non-GM ERAs?
Peter Thygesen, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)

Friendly™ Aedes” and the challenges for the regulation of genetically modified insects in Brazil
Fabiano dos Santos Ferreira, Oxitec

Biosafety and ERA of GM Algae

There is a lot of research both at the academic level as well as by the industry on the use of unicellular eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria for alternative biofuels and for food, feed and nutritional supplements. These organisms provide a source of renewable energy and can harness the sunlight by the use of one of the most common metabolic processes, i.e., photosynthesis. Research is aimed at use of GM algae and cyanobacteria for trait development and therefore, poses a challenge for ERA and biosafety. The objective of this session is to get the stakeholders to brainstorm towards formulating a regulatory framework and the guidelines for large scale cultivation of GM algae and cyanobacteria. Ideas on assessing the environmental risks involved both in open raceway ponds, as well as in contained photobioreactors will be discussed. The session aims at discussing ERA considerations for the deliberate and accidental releases of GM algae into the environment, whether current ERA approaches are applicable and where fine-tuning may be required. This session will serve as a platform for bringing together the key people from algal research as well as the biosafety experts. It will assist in the long term goal of setting the path forward for commercial exploitation of the outcome of such research.

Session organiser: Tomal Dattaroy - Bio, Reliance Industries Ltd

Speakers:

Algal biology – Technological advancements to harness potential benefits and regulatory implications
Tomal Dattaroy, Reliance Industries Limited
Co-authors: Ajit SapreSantanu Dasgupta, 

Overview of guidance and data needs for ERA of GM algae
Carolina Penalva-Arana, US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)

Evaluation of phenotype stability and ecological risk of a GM alga in open pond production
Stephen Mayfield, University of California San Diego (UCSD)
Co-authors: Shawn J Szyjka, Shovon Mandal, Nathan G Schoepp, Briana M Tyler, Christopher B Yohn, Yan S Poon, Steven Villareal, Michael D Burkart, Jonathan B Shurin

Environmental and biotechnological risk assessment of GM algae
Jeremy Sweet, JT Environmental Consultants
Co-authors: Tracey Beacham, Mike Allen

Using algae biotechnology to develop high-value colostrum proteins as formula ingredients
Xun Wang, Triton Algae Innovations
Co-author: Miller Tran

Biosafety assessment for environmental release of GM algae: An Indian perspective
Abhijit Poddar, Biosafety Support Unit
Co-authors: Sangeeta Agarwal, Vanga Siva Reddy, S Raghavendra Rao

Risk assessment of GM algae
Richard Sayre, New Mexico Consortium (NMC)

Capacities for the Risk Assessment of GMOs: Challenges to Build Sustainable Systems

Risk assessment is a dynamic, scientific exercise that requires significant technical capacity. In most countries, this is not a formal specialisation option. Therefore, only practice and experience make professional risk assessors and this is long term process that may take between three and five years. The need for skilled, functional risk assessment bodies demands a continued effort and commitment from regulatory agencies, if sustainability of the regulatory systems is to be achieved. The lack of formal procedures to train and update risk assessors on the criteria to be applied, the high rotation in some cases, or the lack of experienced professionals in others, can be challenging. Capacity building initiatives with different approaches have been implemented in many countries over the years, supported by diverse governmental and nongovernmental organisations. Some of these programs were aimed to build in-country capacities, also encouraging active participation of country experts in international fora. Inclusive discussions are critical to develop consensus on scientific criteria, conceptual tools and common standards that enable evidence-based risk assessment and regulations, ultimately facilitating greater harmonisation among countries and regions. The purpose of this session is to present several experiences regarding strengthening and follow-up of risk assessment capacities in regulatory systems around the world, in order to learn from past experiences and exchange ideas for the development of self-sustainable systems in the future.

Session organiser: Carmen Vicien - Bio, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Speakers:

CONABIA as FAO Centre of reference for biosafety of GMOs
Martin Lema, Ministry of Agro-industry & Quilmes National University
Co-author: Agustina Whelan
 

Capacity building support program for Paraguay
Danilo Fernandez Rios, Universidad Nacional de Asunción
Co-author: Nidia Benitez Candia

Managing agricultural biotechnology research for food security in Africa: Capacity building efforts for research, innovation and application
Ruth Mbabazi, Michigan State University (MSU)
Co-authors: Marc Heijde, Karim Maredia

e-Learning courses: Providing a sustainable and interactive resource
John Teem, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Research Foundation

A curriculum-based approach to teaching biosafety through e-learning
Dennis O Ndolo, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)
Co-authors: Michael Wach, Patrick Rudelsheim, Wendy Craig

Brazilian capacity building experiences in biosafety: Impacts in governance and supporting decision-making
Deise Maria Fontana Capalbo, Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) – Environment
Co-author: Carmen Enriqueta Vicien

Institutional capacity strengthening to overcome systems challenges towards building functional biosafety systems in Africa
Samuel Edudzi Timpo, NEPAD African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE)
Co-authors:Hashini Galhena Dissanayake, Joseph F Guenthner, Godwin N Lemgo, Karim M Maredia